So you have checked with MoD and the various end-users to confirm that this is going ahead without them championing the requirement?
JTO,
I am one of those end-users who works very closely with MoD, JFC Cap, HQ NAVY, FLEET Ops, HQ AIR, DI Mar, AWC and MWC and I have seen no staffwork asking for KUR input to a Sentinel radar upgrade (unlike another potential platform that you are no doubt aware of). Considering that maritime aware SME's from the above departments are limited to a few individuals that all know each other, I am intrigued to exactly who is championing this requirement. My suspicion is that it is being driven by Raytheon and/or Sentinel operators looking to find a use for the aircraft.
The new capability looks pretty good to me but happy to listen.
I will confess at this point my ignorance of the new capability and am also happy to listen. However, the real requirement for maritime surveillance and recce involves searching a reasonably sized area for a specific Contact of Interest (CoI). The 'platform' then neads to confirm or deny the presence of the CoI in the tasked area. If the CoI is located, the platform then needs to provide a positive ID with associated locating report. The Int community would also like a wadge of imagery for the CoI that can be analysed in detail and in a timely manner. All of this needs to be achievable in variable weather and variable sea states.
What is NOT required is an aircraft that manages a surface picture from 42,000 ft and only in sea state 3 or better. It is also of no use being able to report 2 days after landing that it had 106 radar contacts in the tasked area of which, 32 may have related to AIS contacts and one of them may have been the CoI.
So if you are saying that Sentinel will be able to drop down to 200 ft, visually identify contacts, take high quality photographs and report the details immediately to HQ, then it will possibly be worth it, although I still do not see the point of spending any money on a platform that has a shelf life of 3 years.
Many of us are not convinced that it is a welcome step forward and as HAS59 says, there is potential for this upgrade to muddy the waters on the need for a real MPA/MMA.
IMHO, we would be better using the services of someone like Direct Flight who have a proven ability to deliver the requirement and are probably significantly cheaper than Raytheon.