Sentries grounded

[chopper2004]

British Sentry Aircraft No Longer on Guard Over Electrical Issues (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/raf-sentry-no-longer-on-guard)

[WASALOADIE]

The main picture is not one of our Sentries, it's an older version.

[Just This Once...]

Yet more Kapton wiring fires near flammable insulation perchance?

[Wander00]

How similar is RJ?

[Compass Call]

WASALOADIE

I suppose the give away is the photo credit:ok:

[Bring_back_Buck]

Excellent, good excuse to scrap this one trick pony, save Sentinel and buy more P-8s!

[Krystal n chips]

Taken from the article....

" The aircraft are not technically grounded but are rather unservicable.


That's one way of putting it....although there are more succinct engineering terms available. :E

[dervish]

That's one way of putting it....although there are more succinct engineering terms available.

I thought the new term was "paused".

[TEEEJ]

How long will it take for the die-hard conspiracy nuts to claim that the new variant of the Russian Air Force Ilyushin 22 (IL-22PP) fried the E-3s?

In other words, just as NATO decided to deploy over a dozen AWACS planes in Turkey to keep an eye on Syria, Russia rolled out several new aircraft allowing Moscow to jam NATO intelligence gathering operations at the flick of a switch. And that's not even counting the jamming capabilities of ground-based systems already deployed. Whether Russia decides to use this equipment selectively or on a mass scale remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: NATO officials probably won't be the ones to admit that their surveillance operation in Syria isn't gathering as much useful info as they hoped they would get.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201611031047046141-russian-tools-against-nato-AWACS-planes/

[SirToppamHat]

It only takes about 4 hours to convert a weapons controller onto the ground-based system (UCCS), so at least those stuck on the ground will continue to able to be useful members of society by working from Scampton (a short drive away) whilst the jets are grounded. ;)

[Thomas Woodrooffe RN]

Excellent, good excuse to scrap this one trick pony, save Sentinel and buy more P-8s!


One Trick Pony and Sentinel in the same sentence, who'd of thought :)

[Pegasus107]

Good job they aren't plastic and made by Grob, crews could be in for a long wait 🤓

[Pure Pursuit]

One Trick Pony and Sentinel in the same sentence, who'd of thought :)

Or spiral 1 P8!!!!

[Out Of Trim]

Excellent, good excuse to scrap this one trick pony, save Sentinel and buy more P-8s!

Sounds like a pretty stupid comment to me..

Seeing as we need that particular trick available now and in the future. What needs examining is why the older NATO AWACS aircraft don't have the same problem. Is it down to a lack of maintaining them to the same degree?

[ExAscoteer]

Excellent, good excuse to scrap this one trick pony, save Sentinel and buy more P-8s!

What an incredibly strange thing to say.

So you think we should get rid of AEW. Yeah that worked well last time we tried it. NOT.

[Lordflasheart]

Given that all the 70-odd 707-320B based E-3 AWACs airframes were ‘new-build’ between 1970 and the mid 90s, one might presume that the entire airframe history, and servicing, repair and modification records should still be in the possession of the original purchasers. Meaning, none are second-hand, such that any airworthiness or safety problems might be blamed on a ‘murky past.’

Presuming for the moment that the electrics haven’t actually been ‘fried by sputnik,’ this somewhat awkward situation begs a couple of questions.

Is this problem unique to the six remaining RAF airframes, or is it shared by any of the other four operators ? The report says ‘other nations are not thought to be affected’ but it does not explain why not. It certainly seems to be an urgent safety issue for the RAF.

So how is it that apparently only the RAF has encountered this problem ? Has it already been met and rectified elsewhere without the knowledge or engagement of the MoD ? Or is it something that has been introduced this side of the pond ?

I note that in 2009 ‘the MoD cancelled plans for an upgrade’ (I assume this was the 2006 Project Eagle) ‘because it was unaffordable’ and then did not join the ‘Block 40/45 modernisation’ either. This I think, attracted suggestions that having fallen so far behind, it would be difficult to play catch-up at a later date, which was probably why MoD seemed to lose interest in the whole Sentry programme a while back.

Coming to their senses a year ago, it was announced that a so far undefined ‘upgrade path’ (so presumably unique to the RAF) would be undertaken from 2020, to extend its service life ten years beyond the previously announced date of 2025.

Seeing that Northrop Grumman UK has just been awarded a contract to run the UK Sentry WLSP out to 2025, one hopes that there is now a coherent long-term plan, at least until the next Defence Review.

This grounding, apparently for technical issues related to the integrity‎ of electrical wiring and cabin conditioning system, seems to have been a surprise. Given that only one UK Rivet Joint is currently operating while some folks are at the same time dissing the Sentinel, it seems we have been caught short again, intelligence-wise. It is to be hoped that rectification will be both speedy and effective to return the RAF E-3Ds to safe service.

Whatever next ?

...................

[Just This Once...]

The issues of Kapton and flammable blankets do not apply to USAF aircraft as they are a different build standard. The do overlap with NATO aircraft (blankets) but NATO followed Boeing advice and modified their aircraft and the French have similar programmes in line with the various airworthiness directives.

The DE&S response was to fund programs to show that Boeing could be wrong, to try and prove airworthiness directives do not apply to the MoD and using the number of recorded fires on U.K. Sentry to date as evidence that not all fires are catastrophic and that the crew's ability to fight fires could be used to meet the safety target.

They even funded a programme to set fire to a representative configuration in an effort to prove the FAA, Boeing, Airbus, CAA, EASA and Transport Canada wrong. A few made efforts to suggest fixing the wiring and removal of the flammable material may have been better options, but DE&S preferred to spend money on safety case manipulation and fighting the opinion of all other airworthiness bodies.

[glad rag]

The issues of Kapton and flammable blankets do not apply to USAF aircraft as they are a different build standard. The do overlap with NATO aircraft (blankets) but NATO followed Boeing advice and modified their aircraft and the French have similar programmes in line with the various airworthiness directives.

The DE&S response was to fund programs to show that Boeing could be wrong, to try and prove airworthiness directives do not apply to the MoD and using the number of recorded fires on U.K. Sentry to date as evidence that not all fires are catastrophic and that the crew's ability to fight fires could be used to meet the safety target.

They even funded a programme to set fire to a representative configuration in an effort to prove the FAA, Boeing, Airbus, CAA, EASA and Transport Canada wrong. A few made efforts to suggest fixing the wiring and removal of the flammable material may have been better options, but DE&S preferred to spend money on safety case manipulation and fighting the opinion of all other airworthiness bodies.
I don't doubt a word of it but the sheer hubris involved is F35 esk...

[Chugalug2]

glad rag:-
I don't doubt a word of it but...

Glad to hear that glad (clever eh?), but others still do doubt despite this being the third fleet grounding recently; Nimrod (permanently), ACO Gliders (ditto?), and now Sentry. Tuc has been banging the drum that this is the result of a systemic problem, while the MOD line is that every occurrence is unique and the fault of manufacturers, aircrew, named SOs, etc. The fault lies with those who set out to plunder the Air Safety budgets, order that the regs be suborned to save time and money, and rid themselves of the experienced and trained cadre of engineers who would not comply. We are now left with those that produced the fiasco that JTO recounts, and which I don't doubt either.

[ORAC]

Excellent, good excuse to scrap this one trick pony, save Sentinel and buy more P-8s! For those with short memories, the UK AEW force was declared to NTO as our contribution to the NAEWF in lieu of paying for the rest of the force and contributing crews.

One presumes that, in their absence, we will be having to pay our fair share of the costs for the remainder of the force and its use. I doubt there are any savings, and with the remaining duplication in infrastructure it probably absorbs additional cost, not a saving.

[Wensleydale]

For those with short memories, the UK AEW force was declared to NTO as our contribution to the NAEWF in lieu of paying for the rest of the force and contributing crews.

One presumes that, in their absence, we will be having to pay our fair share of the costs for the remainder of the force and its use. I doubt there are any savings, and with the remaining duplication in infrastructure it probably absorbs additional cost, not a saving.


Not strictly true... Historically, the UK was to be part of the NAEW Force with 24 crews to be based at either Brize or Fairford (nothing decided) but the Nations could not agree funding so the UK pulled out of the multi-national programme and instead contributed our own national AEW as the UK Component. Britain does not pay anything into the NAEW Force - our contribution is to provide that UK Component. There is no penalty if we don't provide our aircraft (bearing in mind we were 9 years late to the party in the first place).

[HP90]

Apparently the Sentry upgrade program will cost in the region of ~£2b, and it will be near to 2030 by the time the entire fleet is upgraded (for a 2035 OSD).

In light of those facts, I think we ought to look at replacing the Sentry fleet entirely.

The 737 AEW&C platform (the E-7 Wedgetail in RAAF service) would be a good candidate as it has a lot of commonality with the P-8 (same engines, cockpit, and many other systems), which would create some good maintenance and aircrew training synergies.

If however we're going to keep Sentinel long-term, then the Saab GlobalEye would be another good (and cheaper) candidate, as it is based on the same airframe as Sentinel (Global Express), which again would give many synergies between the two platforms. Saab seem to think that they could sell some to the RAF: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-identifies-uk-as-potential-globaleye-customer-429604/

[Just This Once...]

Don't think we would be interested in operating a radar in the frequency range of the SAAB offering. High power / low frequency has a lot going for it.

[Lordflasheart]

Kapton wiring, dodgy insulation and fire problems in the UK E-3D Sentries ? Surely not ?
Brit MoD fiddling with safety and airworthiness - Couldn’t possibly happen here.

Time frame for any fiddling puts related decisions right in the middle of the Golden Age of aromatic polyimide wiring insulation.
Must be shome mishtake.

..................

[ORAC]

UK Begins Testing Sentry, Post Repairs (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/uk-begins-testing-sentry-post-repairs)

The Royal Air Force has begun testing flying the first of it’s fleet of Sentry E-3D airborne early warning aircraft repaired after being taken out of service in October due to electrical wiring problems. If the tests go to plan the first aircraft could be returned to operational service in the second half of January.

“E-3D Sentry test flying has already commenced, as part of a graduated return to flying for the fleet. This work continues and a return to the normal level of aircraft availability is forecast early in 2017,” said an RAF spokesman. Typically the RAF has four aircraft available for flying duties with two in maintenance.

The six strong fleet of airborne early warning jets was deemed unserviceable earlier this year and effectively grounded after a routine inspection revealed major issues with some electrical wiring and cabin conditioning systems. Defense News exclusively reported the entire fleet had been grounded Nov 4. Later media reports said some underfloor wiring was arcing creating a potential fire risk. Fire blankets on the aircraft were also found to not be fireproof, said the reports.

Britain’s allies have had to step in and fill the temporary capability gap created by the aging aircraft being grounded while repairs are undertaken. In particular the British aircraft and its crews had been active providing support to anti-Daesh operations over Iraq and Syria.

The remedial work on the jets has been undertaken by an RAF-led team which also includes support providers Northrop Grumman and other industry suppliers. Northrop Grumman’s UK arm recently signed a nine year extension to it’s support and availability contract for the aircraft. The wiring replacement work has been undertaken at the Sentry’s temporary base at RAF Coningsby as the aircraft’s normal home, RAF Waddington, is closed to large jets while a new runway is laid.

The RAF Sentry fleet was due to be taken out of service in 2025, but the British announced in their Strategic Defence and Security Review last year that the aircraft's life was being extended ‎by a further 10 years to 2035. The extension‎ is expected to result in a major sustainment and update program on the aircraft starting around the end of the decade. “As part of this requirement, a number of capability sustainment options are under consideration, the capability development plan will be confirmed in due course,” said the RAF spokesman.

[MACH2NUMBER]

IMOP, based on some experience in NATO AWACS management, the NATO aircraft of NAEW&C were always very well serviced (some would say over-serviced) but also upgraded and continue to be so. RAF E3s are not so well placed, I hope they get back in the air very soon, because contrary to the naysayers, the platform is not a 'one trick pony' it could still be made much more versatile and capable.