Sentinel Relocates to GDC

[Mighty Quercus]

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Military Operations | RAF's Sentinel relocates to Gioia del Colle (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/RafsSentinelRelocatesToGioiaDelColle.htm)

From the excellent 'this is why we moved' comments made by Sqn Ldr Hillman, why was this not done six months ago, all seems a bit too late now!!

Probably parking space now that the Typhoons have departed, yet another reason why GDC was a bad choice from the beginning.

[jamesdevice]

relocating to the scrap yard, 2014

[Tourist]

If they have any sense, they will fit the proposed new bag radar to it and have something truly cost effective.

[Jayand]

Would it be too difficult or expensive to turn a few of these into an MPA?
The radar is state of the art, it must have an intergrated mission system, link etc.
Just need a modification for dropping buoys and some new sops and I reckon it would be a goer.

[Donna K Babbs]

Please tell me you're being sarcastic?

[BlackadderIA]

It could do stop-gap LRMP now, but ASW/ASuW? Not a chance - not nearly enough pie lifting capacity for starters.

[Chidken Sangwich]

I had read in the past that these machines are to be scrapped by 2014, but never got to the bottom of why?

Given that these are pretty new in the terms of our Air Force, does anyone know the exact reason as to why these will be binned after such a short life span?

Is it so that we can buy some other 1960's scrap off the Yanks to replace them, I mean why the hell wasnt the Rivet Joint based on a B767? At least they are still building them...

[N707ZS]

Shame they couldn't cut the lumps off and give them to 32 squadron.

[iRaven]

Chidken

Probably because Sentinel is a one-trick pony, with an ageing PED architecture and no AAR capability. Its lack of ability to fly or be based close to the action is also a serious limfac for a sensor that needs to be close to the action to see anything in detail (guess 100-150km ish). There are plenty of assets that can supply better resolution synthetic aperture pictures (both in and outside the atmosphere) and so it is only really the wide area GMTI that is of real use - and we can't afford to keep one-trick ponies these days.

On converting it to be an MPA. The airframe/engines were designed to fly economically at 50-60kft, so trying to float about at 200-2,000ft is not going to give you very good endurance and the loads would be well outside that envisioned (20years of fatigue life inside 2years).

Yup, 32 Sqn could get a lot of Royal duty-free shopping in the "canoe" underneath if they took the radar out.

My advice? Give it to the Army and they can pay for it out of their bit of the Defence Budget - at that point I doubt it would last past the next planning round.

iRaven

[iRaven]

PS Guess who makes the only major bit of kit that doesn't work on it and stops it going forward? It probably wouldn't surprise any of you t'bungling Baron Waistospace is at the heart of the problem...:ugh:

Of course, t'Baron says it could be made to work as required "if they were given more money"! :ugh:

[OldnDaft]

So Sentinel is now in GDC also - the cynic in me can picture the citations now: "Commanded umpty ump hundred pers on operations in austere environment, leading by example etc etc."

Reality - lived in a hotel, relatively comfortably, drank to excess and kept too many people out there than were required.

I despair, we should be better than this.

[iRaven]

Nerd alert :8

MRA4 was to have BR710 B3-40s and the Sentinel has BR710 A2-20s. The B3-40s had corrosion protection against salt spray and different tuning for lower levels.

Also fitted to the Boeing 717 airliner.

So I've been led to believe :confused:

iRaven

[jamesdevice]

"My advice? Give it to the Army and they can pay for it out of their bit of the Defence Budget - at that point I doubt it would last past the next planning round."

If I remember correctly, (OK, very big IF) it was built against an Army surveillance requirement which the RAF hijacked......
Isn't that what the platypus-nosed Islander / Defender was all about? Somehow a cheap airframe which could be flown by army crew from local rough fields got converted into a typical RAF mega-bucks item which needed a massive infrastructure and long concrete runways to make it work. Don't forget the RAF's first attempt to hijack the program - rebuilt (again) PR9 Canberras with side-scan radar. Happily noone took that seriously
Having diverted the cash stream away from the AAC, the RAF can now get it killed off as "not needed" (by them...)

[Chidken Sangwich]

iRaven - thanks for your reply.

So in a nutshell, the Sentinel is a basket case that we should have never wasted money on in the first place.

Yet more MoD forward thinking...

[Sentia]

iRaven

I am intrigued as to which bit of kit it is which has stopped Sentinel moving forward?

[Biggus]

....the brakes..... ;););)

[Biggus]

jamesdevice,

I thought Sentinel was a sort of "poor mans JSTARS", but am no expert in this area.

If the Army think they can get JSTARS type capability in an Islander, good luck to them..... (I won't even mention radar horizon)...... :D:D:D

[andyy]

JD - this may help with the background: Bombardier Sentinel R1 (http://www.spyflight.co.uk/sentinel.htm)

I suppose that you could argue that ASaC7 is performing the CASTOR role in the sandpit originally envisaged by the Army.

[iRaven]

Sentia

I can't answer that question without howls of "beadwindow" from the "OPSEC police"! What I can say that is does not fly out of Afghanistan to complete its current mission for a reason.

iRaven

[Prop-Ed]

Chidken,
Beware of Pprune knowitalls. iRaven sounds convincing but like lots dudes on this forum, spouts ill informed opinion as fact.

Suffice to say, the Sentinel may not be disappearing quite as rapidly as some may think.

[iRaven]

Prop Ed

Ill informed opinion as fact...

Best you tell Air RP, Cap ISTAR, the Prime Minister and Deputy who signed off SDSR and the new SofS who said in his recent message to the troops that he would be continuing to implement SDSR as published. Sentinel is to cease at the end of Op HERRICK - fact; it's written into SDSR.

Of course, there are those that think they can change the decision like they changed the MRA4 and GR7/9 decisions :ugh:

iRaven

PS.
In order to meet this new structure the Royal Air Force will:

• reduce by around 5,000 personnel to about 33,000 by 2015, and with an assumption, for now, of a requirement of about 31,500 by 2020;
• withdraw the C-130 Hercules transport fleet ten years earlier than planned as we transition to the more capable and larger A400M;
• withdraw the Sentinel surveillance aircraft once it is no longer required to support operations in Afghanistan;
• rationalise the RAF estate;
• retain Tornados, which will continue to operate in Afghanistan;
• remove Harrier from service in the transition to a future fast jet force of Typhoon and JSF. This will mean a gap for carrier fast jet operations. JSF, like Harrier, will be operated jointly by RAF and Royal Navy pilots;
• not bring into service the Nimrod MRA4; and
• withdraw VC-10 and the three variants of TriStar aircraft from 2013 as we transition towards the more capable A330 future strategic transport and tanker aircraft.

[BlackadderIA]

Furious backpeddling from CAS:
"If we now move into the requirement over land, and I will just point out that our defense review said when we no longer needed the Sentinel, we would then look to dispose of it."

Notice the sudden lack of any mention of Afghanistan. MOD have also removed the "End of Afghan" phrase and replaced it with "no longer required on operations".

Sentinel crews flew every single day over Libya from intial deployment and still do so. Until the move to GDC they were also the ONLY Op Ellamy Aircrew not staying in hotels (the joys of being led by the Army) so no digs about being on holidays please.



Anyway - ASTOR may go, but Sentinel will almost certainly stay.

[The B Word]

How will "Sentinel almost certainly stay"? SDSR chopped it, the 3 month exercise still says it has to go and there is a hole in the defence budget of £10-15Bn over the next 10 years. Christ guys, even the beloved jump jet wasn't safe - only Afghanistan is saving Sentinel at present now Gaddafi is gone.

Come and join the rest of us on Planet Defence-is-broke!

The B Word

[Prop-Ed]

Oh iRaven,

I’m not sure where to begin with you. So,…..i’m not going to. Get on the blower to CAS and I’m sure he’ll set you right. I do like your interpretation of the SDSR document in relation to your first post on this thread. Like I said; I’ll informed……..

Cheers!

[jamesdevice]

Biggus
re the Islander - see Aircraft ZG989 (Britten-Norman BN-2 Astor C/N 2140) Photo by Malcolm Clarke (Photo ID: AC400719) (http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/400719.html)

it would have been a surveillance radar only, no processing in the aircraft, with everything downlinked to a ground station. But then wasn't that the plan for Sentinel?

[Biggus]

james,

Fine, I didn't say it didn't exist!! I did say it wouldn't have JSTARS type capability.


How good was the radar, giving the size/weight constraints of an installation inside an islander?

Is it pressurized?

What is its max operating alt, and corresponding radar horizon?

If you're trying to look 50-60 miles behind the front line, with a poor quality radar picture, then maybe it would have worked...

You would have thought the Brits would have learn the folly of trying to put capability into an airframe that was too small for it from the days of the AEW3 Nimrod! Given some of the anecdotal stories I have heard, the same error may have occurred on the Sentinel anyway...

[Sentia]

jamesdevice

I can't see how that could ever have been the idea for Sentinel, otherwise they probably wouldn't have the crew compliment that they do.

If that was to be the conop then surely it would have been easier to develop a UAV......SCAVENGER anyone!!

[jamesdevice]

The story as published when the Sentinel project was released to the public was that an aircraft smaller than JSTARS was deliberately chosen to save cost, with much of the analysis having to be done at the ground stations. Of course what may have been said and what may have happened may be different - but I doubt if anyone is going to tell us.
As regards the Islander - yes, criticism totally valid, However it was genuinely considered for the CASTOR role - which got subsumed into ASTOR.
Now heres the rub - you effectively have a redundant Navy aircraft (the SK7) doing the CASTOR job for the Army. Now what is that going to be replaced with when the Sea Kings all get withdrawn? What is cheap and cheerful and will take the ASaC kit?
Could you fit it in an Inslander? Or a King Air? For that matter, could either be modded to fly from the new carriers - either with or without catapults? Neither can be less effective as a platform than a Sea King

[iRaven]

Oh, Prop Ed...

"Get on the blower to CAS". Yes, his importance in high-level decisions hasn't been undermined at all has it? CNS, CGS and CAS have all been removed from the Defence Board and are being sent home to their single service HQs - see Transforming Defence and Defence Reform Review. Only CGS remains with a Civil Servant CDM - amongst a bunch of Ministers, Civil Servants and Non-exec Board Members; they make the decisions now. CAS can whinny and squinny as much as he likes, unless the Defence Board bites off on it then Sentinel will remain an expensive one-trick pony that the Defence Budget cannot bear. What would you lose? More FJs to fund something that can only "find" but cannot PID (or "fix") and most definately cannot "finish".

Yes, SCAVENGER is the great white hope, but if those idiots at Warton are let loose it will almost certainly become the great white elephant! Global Hawk could fit the bill to replace Sentinel but is way too expensive. But, hey, the APG-81 AESA Radar equipped wonderjet called the F-35 will deliver SAR/GMTI, AEW and Air-Air moding - if you believe the hype?! When coupled to SCAVENGER what place has Sentinel got in the future?

iRaven

[Prop-Ed]

Good god iRaven,

You are just making it worse for yourself. If you are actually involved in ISTAR in any direct way, PM me and i'll send you hand crafted apology. (E3 doesn't count).
It’s not going to be my problem so I don’t particularly give a toss. However, my original point stands…Stop talking half baked bollocks.

[Rulebreaker]

For what its worth raytheon have submitted written evidence to the defence select committee on sentinel over libya it includes their view on the scavenger uav, jsf option

HC 950 Operations in Libya (14th October 2011) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmdfence/writev/950/lib07.htm)

[jamesdevice]

You'd think that anyone submitting such a document would think better than to talk of "collation forces"
One typo undermines the credibility of the whole document

[Archimedes]

It could just as easily be a typo made in the process of consolidating the various pieces of written evidence into one document - it wouldn't be the first time that the evidence contained a spelling mistake not in the original submission.

(and even if it is Raytheon's error, the document is still more credible than the utter garbage from the 'bring back the Harrier' lobby which has done its usual trick of hiding some good points in a stream of factually inaccurate rubbish).

[Jimlad1]

"CNS, CGS and CAS have all been removed from the Defence Board and are being sent home to their single service HQs - see Transforming Defence and Defence Reform Review"

And if you bothered to read Levene properly, and not the papers, you'll see that the service chiefs essentially regain control of their budget. Meanwhile the Defence Board is being turned into an executive board, gaining a Minister, in the same manner as every other Govt department.

Nothings changed at all, its just being done in a different way on a wiring diagram. The only people that dont understand that are those who believe it when the DM tells them the world is flat and we're going to fall off the edge...

[iRaven]

Prop Ed - sorry I don't do internet dating and I'd rather stay anonymous.

Rulebreaker - that link is pure "spin" from Raytheon Systems Ltd trying to save their business. They are not involved in the SCAVENGER program one bit and thus how on earth would they know of its "short range capabilities"? Even if we take Reaper, it has a SAR that has a better resolution (4" in open source on the Sandia National Laboritories website) to Sentinel's considerably larger resolution measured in feet rather than inches. Granted the Reaper's Lynx SAR has a shorter max range of 40km but don't forget Reaper can get closer as it doesn't risk crew's lives. It also has a very good GMTI capability for going "big to small". Now SCAVENGER is expected to be better than Reaper; even if its the next Block of MQ9 with GA's improved SAR - but it could also be Talarion, Mantis or Avenger which all have pretty good SARs on the cards. How they can claim to know anything about JSF is also a joke as they will not have been "read in" to the Radar program. All in all, utter tosh from a company that has little left on its order books (Sentinel has dried up and the Shadow has also finished for the time being).

iRaven

[iRaven]

Jim Lad

Controlling ones's budget and setting the policy, crafting the strategy and dictating the force structure are wholly different things. CAS will be told how many people he will have, what FEs he needs to field and what timescales to work to - then over to him to make it happen within his budget. Otherwise, you would have the tail wagging the dog if CAS told the Defence Board what the policy, strategy and force structure is, wouldn't you? In fact, when it comes to capability requirements to do the job, I would have thought Stu Peach in his new 4-star appointment will have more sway on requirements than CAS?

iRaven

[Prop-Ed]

iRaven,

I’m giving you the benefit of doubt here. I assume you have an expertise in something (clearly not ISTAR). But you know the feeling when you see the Media talk rubbish/make up facts/misquote/take info out of context about a subject you are knowledgeable on?
Well that feeling is happening to me right now.

Try and get your facts from better sources than Wikipedia.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Can we stop with the "I know better" "no, I know better" stuff?

Prop-Ed, if you've got some sort of insider information or a reason to know better than iRaven, why not tell us a bit more? I appreciate you obviously don't want to reveal your identity but this is a rumour site, so perhaps you'd like to give us your full take on things?

It gets a bit boring when all you do is tell us iRaven must be wrong, but without any sort of substance.

[Biggus]

Well, I don't claim to know anything more than anyone else, however....

If Plan A, which was presumably costed, funded, planned, etc (yes, I know, but I did say "presumably") had the Sentinel retiring in 2015 (post Afghanistan) then it won't have been costed beyond then.

If the new plan, Plan B, is for Sentinel now to continue past 2015, then funding to allow it to do so has to be found. Either by:

A general increase in the Defence budget post 2015

or

By losing funding elsewhere (cutting something?) within the Defence budget as a matter of shifting priorities.



Surely the above train of logic makes basic sense, or am I missing something obvious...?

[iRaven]

Biggus. Spot on, me old :ok:

5 fwd 6 back - you put it better than I could have :ok:

iRaven

[Small Spinner]

iRaven
You really need to do a little bit more research before commenting. Your mention about a one trick pony only disguises your lack of understanding about what that trick is all about. You have no reason to believe me, but your comments about its performance and value are miles out, and trust me Sentinel will be around beyond 2020.
The limitations of a UAV system are there for people to see, but the tactical use of a manned platform is sometimes, maybe often the key factor in modern warfare.

[iRaven]

"Tactical Use"? Wide area surveillance assets are strategic, not tactical. Also, as a manned asset it will never be used in a contested tactical environment - far less so than RPAS (UAV is so passe these days). The reasons being already hinted at and why it currently cannot fly from airfields in Afghanistan and had to wait until it was safe to go "feet dry" in Libya.

Nope, it is a one-trick pony and I remember telling the Sqn Cdr "Harry" that very fact in Afghanistan back during the OCD in 2008. I also chuckled when subsequent Bde Cdrs commented in their post-deployment report about it not being able to track a motorbike through Nad-e Ali (oddly enough!).

The imagery it produced for Ellamy was also laughable - there was plenty of more up to date IMINT collect available from other sources of the same targets; but the RAF PR machine were crowing about Sentinel to try and save it (including the ACC).

So RPAS won't cut it? Better tell the Yanks that are piling loads of cash into Global Hawk and others to replace U2 and JSTARS and also NATO and their AGS program.

Jeeez, you guys...:ugh:

iRaven

[Small Spinner]

Sounds like you were doing a bit more talking than listening with Sqn Cdr 'Harry'. :ugh:
On that I'll just watch the rest of this thread.

[Corporal Clott]

Well said, iRaven, let's get rid of it now Libya is over and use the money saved to put UORs like Reaper and Shadow into "core" - there might even be some savings to be had to stop some of the redundancies across the rest of the Air Force.

CPL Clott

[Green Flash]

Never mind all that, is Charlies, The Chicken Shack and the Belgy bar still going? The Via Roma? Bianca Lancia? And has anyone been annoying the cheese police? :E

[TwoTunnels]

iRaven, you are showing your (and many like you) ignorance in the subject. Wide Area 'Surveillance' (or coverage) is NOT necessarily Strategic.
As for Op ELLAMY, it is/was the flexibility, reach, persistence of the platform and the ANALYSIS behind the 'laughable' imagery which was the success.

Soooo many armchair 'experts' around!!!

TT

[TheChitterneFlyer]

Soooo many armchair 'experts' around!!!

Well said...

[H Peacock]

The reasons being already hinted at and why it currently cannot fly from airfields in Afghanistan and had to wait until it was safe to go "feet dry" in Libya.

Well, it could operate from airfields in Afghanistan, but simply doesn't need to. And maybe it went 'feet dry' on Op E much earlier than you think. So maybe you don't have all the facts and maybe you have now demonstrated that you clearly don't know what you are talking about! :ugh:

[iRaven]

it could operate from airfields in Afghanistan, but simply doesn't need to

That is the biggest load of sh!te I have so far seen spouted. It takes Sentinel 1:15hr to get anywhere near useful bits of Afghanistan from its current base elsewhere in the Middle East. Now let's say it flies for 9hrs unrefueled (it doesn't have an AAR capability), then that is 6:30hrs maximum on station - or if it flew from Afghanistan then it would give 8hrs. Anyone would prefer to have an extra 1:30hr on station - surely?!!! As for going "feet dry" there was even talk about putting a Typhoon on its wing to try and help it out.

Nope, imaging SAMs and then crowing about it 3-6hrs later when other assets are watching in real time and others are listening in real time means that it is pretty useless to me. The WBDL on Sentinel is pretty useless and obsolete so collect is usually downloaded unless its GMTI via NBDL. Yes, you can "voice tell" in real time, but ISR has moved on these days and that is sooo 80s. We have 2 choices: keep this "pup" or I suggest we put it down as the runt of the ISR litter.

I have yet to see any of you lot tell me why we should keep Sentinel at the expense of other assets (ISR or non-ISR). Lots of bleeting is all I hear - similar to the whine of an APU.

iRaven

[H Peacock]

Now let's say it flies for 9hrs unrefueled (it doesn't have an AAR capability), then that is 6:30hrs maximum on station - or if it flew from Afghanistan then it would give 8hrs. Anyone would prefer to have an extra 1:30hr on station - surely?!!! As for going "feet dry" there was even talk about putting a Typhoon on its wing to try and help it out.

iR, you are clearly showing your ignorance with the numbers you appear to have randomly chosen. The only bit you got right was that 9hrs-2:30=6:30!

Not an appropriate forum to give exact numbers, but the ac can comfortably achieve the 8hrs you speak of. Unlike other ISTAR assets with small petrol tanks, it just doesn't need to be AAR capable. The Global Express was chosen 'cos it will easily fly for over 12hrs. Now that is long enough for anyone, even if some of it is used to transit!

[Prop-Ed]

Guys, don’t waste your breath with this one.

You can’t win against idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

Isn’t that right iRaven….”me old”?:ok:

[Lottery Winner]

You see, I'm guessing that our man iRaven is perhaps a Waddington dude and possibly even someone who has, or has had, something to do with the Nimrod R1 ... possibly even someome who is linked, in some way, to the RJ prog? Might not be of course but his (or her) previous posts have tended to be comments on ISTAR related topics and the 'iRaven' tag may be a link to the EWO role on the RC-135. Therefore, he (or she) really, really, really should know a little better. If (and I am quite prepared to accept I am way off the beaten track) he (or she) is (or was) a Waddington ISTAR dude then he (or she) ought to have a wider and more informed view. If iRaven is a Waddington ISTAR dude and is still struggling with the whole tactical vs strategic asset thing then he (or she) really ought to do some more reading.

I don't read PPRuNe that often but every now and again I drag myself out of my pool, have one of my fluffers dry me and take a browse ... I ask you!:)

[iRaven]

Nope! :ok:

12hrs for Global Express at 60kft on a transit is correct.

12hrs for a converted Global Express with a cut down U2 Radar in a draggy radome, satcom dome and extra weight of the kit onboard called "Sentinel" is incorrect. It also normally operates well below 60kft as well.

AAR capability on any asset is a massive force multiplier - only a fool would deny that. Therefore, AAR is highly desirable for Sentinel but was left off to save weight/space - so it could get nearer to the original 60kft (but not close enough).

iRaven

[H Peacock]

Nope!

12hrs for Global Express at 60kft on a transit is correct.

12hrs for a converted Global Express with a cut down U2 Radar in a draggy radome, satcom dome and extra weight of the kit onboard called "Sentinel" is incorrect. It also normally operates well below 60kft as well.

AAR capability on any asset is a massive force multiplier - only a fool would deny that. Therefore, AAR is highly desirable for Sentinel but was left off to save weight/space - so it could get nearer to the original 60kft (but not close enough).

iRaven

iR.
1. 60k???? Global Express ceiling is 51k, Sentinel was never going to get - or even try to get above that. Was going to ask you why you wanted it to go so high - but I won't; can't imagine where your logic would take us all - you clearly know nothing about aerodynamics, endurance etc.

2. 12hrs Sentinel. Why so sure it can't be done? You are, of course, incorrect.

3. AAR; with the incorrect data you have on endurance I see how you incorrectly deduce Sentinel needed it.

iR. I now deduce that you are clearly non-serving and so excuse your complete lack of understanding of Sentinel. I see someone believes you could indeed be ISTAR related, but you couldn't possible claim that and be so wide of the mark with your figures.

Now, will listen to Prop-Ed

Guys, don’t waste your breath with this one.

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Sentia]

Here, here Lotto Winner, iRaven appears to be one of those Prunners with little knowledge of a system but is quite happy to go to press based on a conversation he had with a Sqn Cdr back in 2008.

Maybe he is annoyed at not being a successful applicant for a post on the platform and seeks revenge by naming it 'the one trick pony'.

If he had some up-to-date facts and figures from the guys and girls who operate it, he may actually have some credability.......doubtful. Otherwise everything that he has quoted so far means nothing.

[Biggus]

...nothing alters the fact that under the terms of the SDSR it is due to go in 2015....



If it can fly for 12 hrs ish at 50,000ft ish, what were all the horror stories I heard, about the issues with minimizing weight of various on board items, from a Sentinel pilot a while ago - or was he just trying to wind me up (I don't see why he would be doing that, as I have no real interest in the aircraft...)

[iRaven]

Some of you "doth protest too much" (Shakespeare) and WTF does it matter who I am?

Anyway, back to what we were discussing and once again Biggus is on the money.

Which of these should we scrap when the savings box is being shaken?

Sentry - Nope, NAEW&FC commitment written in stone, critical asset for FJs (Typhoon, F-35, Tornado), also critical for making sure that sitting ducks like Sentinel know that the bad guys are coming.

Reaper - Nope, armed-ISR is the most important asset in today's and future conflicts. Whilst a UOR this could become SCAVENGER in the future or even better armed-ISR assets are procured to replace.

Shadow - Nope, key specialist organic UOR capability.

RIVET JOINT - Nope, key to the special relationship and also for maintaining or global lead in SIGINT.

MRA4 - gone, was going to be even more of a money pit before we got what we so desperately need.

Sentinel - going, one-trick pony of Cold War heritage. Struggles to find its true worth in complex, blurred and insurgent campaigns (which if doctrine is to be believed is the future shape of conflicts).

The thing that really does disturb me is the parochial nature of the arguments from the light-blue and green that fly it - it smacks of "job protectionism" rather than trying to get the best for the Service. As said before, we could bring both UORs into core if we binned this early.

OK, I've looked up the cleared service ceiling and it is 51,000ft; I was wrong on that figure. But Biggus is right about minimising weight to achieve anywhere near 45kft.

iRaven

[jamesdevice]

If its really that useless, one has to ask whose was the wet dream that caused it to be pointlessly purchased?

[Corporal Clott]

Just looked and can't understand why the current vul is shorter than the massive 12hrs+ that some have claimed on this thread? Surely, you would want to fly to maximum endurance as an ISTAR asset to give maximum time on station for your supported unit?

There might be more than one telling porkies on here in what has turned into a big game of "Top Trumps"...:confused:

CPL Clott

[Lima Juliet]

A direct lift from the RAF website on the Sentinel R1:

The aircraft will operate at altitudes in excess of 40,000ft with a mission endurance over 9 hours.

So this must be as they say, "in the ball park"?

LJ

PS I retired recently from an ISTAR post and know that there is a lot of muck spreading going on here to blur the real facts.

[H Peacock]

The thing that really does disturb me is the parochial nature of the arguments from the light-blue and green that fly it - it smacks of "job protectionism" rather than trying to get the best for the Service. As said before, we could bring both UORs into core if we binned this early.

Now you may have had a valid point here, but by coming out with the incorrect c@@? you have to date you have lost all cred to the deabate.

OK, I've looked up the cleared service ceiling and it is 51,000ft; I was wrong on that figure. But Biggus is right about minimising weight to achieve anywhere near 45kft.

Wrong AGAIN, on BOTH counts!!!

Now which other manned ISTAR assets do we have that sit at this demanded 45-60k you speak of...? Go on, do tell

Sentry - Nope, NAEW&FC commitment written in stone, critical asset for FJs (Typhoon, F-35, Tornado), also critical for making sure that sitting ducks like Sentinel know that the bad guys are coming.

Not too sure one would want to wait for AWACs to pass on a threat - probably much too late!!! Always best to cut out the middle man - go direct!

[The B Word]

Now if we're looking at parochialism how many involved in this debate wears one of these:

http://www.rafweb.org/images/IA%20Badge.JPG

Or these:

http://www.rafweb.org/Uniform_etc/WSO.jpg

That would be "job protectionalism" of the highest order!

The B Word

[iRaven]

Here is the current Sqn Cdr spelling out the endurance issues of not having AAR and why basing close to theatre (or in the case of Afghanistan "in theatre") really matters...

OC 5(AC) Sqn, Wg Cdr Marshall, explains how the move to Gioia del Colle will enhance the Sentinel’s mission time and explains how the operational and tactical intelligence gathered by the aircraft has had a tangible effect on the success of the operation.

“The relocation of Sentinel to Gioia del Colle airbase reduces our transit distance to and from Libya, increasing the time that the aircraft is able to remain on task for each sortie. This increased task time will permit additional data to be collected and, when combined with the ability to interact face-to-face with the co-located Tornado GR4 crews and Tactical Imagery Wing analysts , will significantly enhance the contribution that Sentinel is able to make to the Libya operation.

Oh dear, where's your credibility now Mr Peacock? :E

[iRaven]

PS Sitting above 45k+ allows you to sit above a lot of mobile SAMs. The last asset we had to do that was the PR9 (:{) and now only Typhoon sits up there but has no recce role. Still the US have U2, WB-57, RQ-4 and others that can do that, so why can't we ask for manned/unmanned assets that sit up there as well - why settle for second (or third or fourth) best?

[sargs]

Hmm, iRaven appears in Oct 10 just as another ISTAR "expert" retires from PPRuNe (but continues holding court amongst the air power intelligentsia on ARRSE).....iRaven, you ARE Magic Mushroom and I claim my £5......

[H Peacock]

iR

You are not seeing the wood for the trees. Even common sense would indicate that: Less transit time = more loiter time.


Put the entire Op E fleet in Tripoli and - gosh - everyone has more time on task!!!! Clearly any transit of an ISTAR asset will reduce its on-station loiter time. Do most high value assets get based in the thick of it? Have we seen some ISTAR assets transitting for 3hrs plus at either end of the loiter?? Are you really saying you want everything up for as long is feasibly possible??? Good, I thought not.

So, what has OC 5 Sqn said that rubbishes my credibility??? (I'm waiting -PM if you need to!)


Sentinel has its flaws; however, you chose to question why it could only sit on station for 6:30hr due to being too heavy and that an AAR capability would have solved this. Quite simply you are wrong! Like most things in life it is a compromise. Sentinel is a bloody good compromise between fuel v time v loiter. :D



And no, the PR9 did not 'sit' above 45k. It could go well above, but didn't when on task!!!

[iRaven]

Peacock

You seem to be going around in circles, dear boy...

H Peacock wrote:
Well, it could operate from airfields in Afghanistan, but simply doesn't need to.

Then you say above in your latest post that it would appear to need to, but then say that you don't need to stay up as long as possible. I'm sure if Sentinel is as "key" as you all make out then, yes, it should fly to max endurance for the supported unit.

By the way, I agree it could operate from airfields in Afghanistan if it had the major upgrade that it would need to allow the ODH to declare ALARP in theatre - and that's not going to happen as it's going to be scrapped and would therefore be a waste of money!

As for "bloody good compromise" - don't make me laugh! The whole thing is another procurement shambles and the NAO should be all over this as it is with others. Failed to deliver, late, over budget, barely IOC and delivered with in-built obsolesence issues from the start to name but a few.

Sargs

Magic Mushrooms - never touched them, flew them or even set foot in one. Keep looking for your fiver, fella...:ok:

iRaven

[Fire 'n' Forget]

FWIW, iRaven is fairly accurate in his posts.

All I see is a lot of 'new' posters obviously from 5 trying to justify the frame. Libya was a last roll of the dice for the aircraft and it is understandable that some try and 'expand' its worth and capabilities.

It's worth was negligible IMO with all the other assets out in OE that managed to work together. It is simply a product that has been overtaken with smaller, cheaper more persistent assets.

I have heard the rumours about possibly keeping it, however take the pat on the back fella's they are just being 'nice to you' watch out for the knife.

[sargs]

All I see are "new" posters from 5 patiently trying to explain, without overstepping the line, that most of the tosh on here is just that - tosh. Many of the criticisms come from people like Tourist who obviously know a bit (I take it he's a friend of Bish) but have no idea of what's really happening out there. iRaven is the worst perpetrator - he's throwing around technical hearsays like "WBDL" without having a clue what it really does. I admit that ASTOR has had the odd problem, probably still has, but those who are operating it know the real worth of it. The rest of it is just semi-informed rubbish.

By the way, I'm not on 5 and I don't have one of B Words brevets - but I do know what I'm talking about.

[Prop-Ed]

Fire ‘n’ Forget,

For my edification, could you please point out exactly what bits of iRaven’s bollocks you believe to be “fairly accurate”!? I'll let you know whether you are correct.

The guy appears to be a crack smoking, mentalist, F---Wit who likes to pull facts and figures out of his arse (no offence iRaven).

I too don’t wear any of the B Words brevets but can’t believe the utter horsesh!t I’m reading on this forum from guys who should know much, much better.

I would also advise that iRaven is clearly loving the attention he is managing to command by spouting his tosh. Maybe if we ignore him he might go somewhere else and talk bollocks on another subject he knows F’ All about…….:cool:

[Just This Once...]

Well I welcome the comments from the 5 Sqn chaps as they are the only experts on what Sentinel can or cannot do. Having 'witnessed' these facts I am more than happy for them to be corrected, tweaked or put in context by the Army, RAF and RN people that actually operate the aircraft:

Endurance - Seen the aircraft depart on an operational task and recover to Cyprus with over 12hrs between the T/O and recovery times. No suggestion that it landed and hid anywhere so I guess we can call it a fact that it can and does achieve 12hrs plus in an op configuration. Less than 2 hrs later the aircraft was off again for another 12hrs plus.

Utility - Despite only having 4 aircraft all 4 were deployed in March (and perhaps repeated since) to cover 2 ops. Given the 'risk' taken by the powers that be with the number of hours accumulated, days away and cumulative fatigue plus suspension of OCU and trg one would hope that the end users demand for the product was in high demand to balance the 'risk'.

Altitude - Not sure of the absolute limit but as a windscreen delaminated in front of a pilot cruising at FL490 at 0.8M (judging by the recent incident report) it looks like it goes pretty high.

Future Fleet - The original trials aircraft (no mission capability) was laid up at Broughton some time ago. Post-SDSR money seems to have been found to bring it up to full mission capability which will increase the fleet size to 5 as of next year.

End Users - Despite the criticism on here the coalition users of the collect provided are almost gushing in praise for the aircraft and the capability provided. As a 'user' myself I can add my own praise here too.

Cost - Don't know how much we paid for development but per flying hour it appears to be the cheapest to operate Air Cmd asset we own.

No doubt I hand the thread over to those who like to do nothing more than administer scorn on the lads and lasses who serve us so well in 2 operational theatres. Just where did all the pride in our colleagues go?

[Strucky]

'Just This Once' - excellent post.

Finally, someone with first-hand experience and knowledge adds a worth-while post regarding Sentinel/ASTOR. If some would actually look at the link provided by 'Rulebreaker', post #32, it would be noted that the ASTOR System (5 x aircraft, 6 x TGS, 2 x OLGS and 10 years of support for around £850M is an absolute bargain! How much will Scavenger cost??

Anyone with any real experience of ISTAR or UAS, will appreciate that ASTOR and UAS are complimentary systems; however, a UAS EO/IR/GMTI sensor package is extemely limited and should be compared to looking through a 'straw'. UAS require to be cross-queued to be effective but are excllent at localisation and identification.

In a perferct world, I would have Reaper, Watchkeeper, Scavenger and ASTOR working together, but if money was limited, I would keep to a combat proven system that is extremely flexible, is paid for, is very cost-effective and is in-service!

Bring on the brick-bats!

[iRaven]

however, a UAS EO/IR/GMTI sensor package is extemely limited and should be compared to looking through a 'straw'. UAS require to be cross-queued to be effective but are excllent at localisation and identification.

See links [MQ-9 Lynx® Multi-mode Radar (http://www.ga-asi.com/products/sensor_systems/lynxsar.php) ] and [Watchkeeper Thales and Elop to provide payloads for Watchkeeper UAV (http://www.flightglobal.com/channels/mro/articles/2005/12/07/203506/thales-and-elop-to-provide-payloads-for-watchkeeper.html/) ] for "big to small payloads".

Endurance - Seen the aircraft depart on an operational task and recover to Cyprus with over 12hrs between the T/O and recovery times. No suggestion that it landed and hid anywhere so I guess we can call it a fact that it can and does achieve 12hrs plus in an op configuration. Less than 2 hrs later the aircraft was off again for another 12hrs plus.

Yes - for Cyprus at this time of year (max 25 deg C), but not for elsewhere...

Altitude - Not sure of the absolute limit but as a windscreen delaminated in front of a pilot cruising at FL490 at 0.8M (judging by the recent incident report) it looks like it goes pretty high.

IIRC, it was on the way home when it was lightweight enough to fly that high?

it would be noted that the ASTOR System (5 x aircraft, 6 x TGS, 2 x OLGS and 10 years of support for around £850M is an absolute bargain! How much will Scavenger cost??

Scavenger is expected to deliver 6x 24/7 orbits at around a couple of billion. ASTOR/Sentinel delivers a single 24/7 orbit (maybe 1.5 at a surge) at £850M. Do the maths and Scavenger is £333M per 24/7 orbit and ASTOR/Sentinel is £567M-£850M per 24/7 orbit (depending on whether you use the surge figure).

full mission capability

Err, I believe the capability is still at IOC?

End Users - Despite the criticism on here the coalition users of the collect provided are almost gushing in praise for the aircraft and the capability provided. As a 'user' myself I can add my own praise here too.

Apart from GMTI, what else does it bring to the party that other assets cannot deliver quicker for exploit? At £850M that is a very expensive pricetag for delivering upto 9-10hrs of GMTI.

Anyway, I'm off to smoke some crack and live in the funny farm now - :ugh:

I just hope that my protest on potential spending scarce defence cash has been noted by those that matter.

Accordingly, I retire from this debate. :ok:

iRaven

[Prop-Ed]

Thank God for that. :D

[H Peacock]

Anyway, I'm off to smoke some crack and live in the funny farm now -

I just hope that my protest on potential spending scarce defence cash has been noted by those that matter.

Accordingly, I retire from this debate.

TFFT:rolleyes:

[The B Word]

Shame, you had some of them on the ropes at times

Still no-one ever retires...

http://fastcache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/12/2006/09/medium_schumacher_retire.jpg

...maybe next season, eh? PR13? :ok:

[5 Forward 6 Back]

This thread still appears to be iRaven pointing out problems and flaws with Sentinel, and a bunch of people popping on to say YOU'RE WRONG IDIOT and throw some schoolboy insults about.

Rather than hurling abuse at iRaven, could one of these posters perhaps explain why iRaven is wrong, rather than just saying he is without any backup?

I'm sure there's a lot of stuff he's saying that you could easily disprove if it were untrue without smashing the OSA to bits.

[Prop-Ed]

5F 6B,
If you read most of the other posts on this forum not written by iRaven, the true and accurate details of the sentinel platform have pretty much been covered.

iRaven’s inability to post credible data in response to the knowledgeable posters on the forum, doesn’t mean he hasn’t been disproven. It just means it is rubbish.
Eg; a max temp of 25 degrees in Cyprus!? (Ellamy has been going on a long time and the Sentinel’s endurance hasn’t changed over the long summer months out there. I.e. MUCH warmer than 25 degrees). It’s just crap that isn’t worth the effort to respond to (I'm sure you can check the met office website for historical data at AKR if you really want to?....).

Not sure what else you are looking for?

[Wrathmonk]

in response to the knowledgeable posters on the forum

But whilst they remain anonymous their viewpoint is no more or no less valid than anyone else. You may know the characters behind the various Nom de PPRuNes that are calling 'rubbish' on iRaven but the vast majority won't. So why should we believe you over iRaven? ;)

[Prop-Ed]

Mate, that is an excellent point,

For those who really, really want to know about a hugely complex, multi faceted, multi million pound, MOD ISTAR project that has taken years to develop and is currently deployed in 2 theatres. How about, instead of trawling internet forums where anonymous posters can write any old ****e and pass it off as the God’s honest truth. You might want to find an alternative source of broadening your horizons?! Like get up off your arse, turn off Pprune and do some old fashioned research!!!!

I know it will never catch on…..:ugh:

[Wrathmonk]

You haven't seen anything yet. Just you wait until the MOD announce they are going to disband the ASACS Sea Kings (or any other FAA platform for that matter) in order to extend the life of, or upgrade, the Sentinal .... ;)

[Tourist]

My god you are right!


The party will go on for days.

No more shall they have to orbit slowly whilst licking grooves in the window.
No more shall they have to slowly witness the growth of extra limbs and the diminution of their social circle.
No more shall they have to suffer the epithet "freak"....(of course they are wrong about that one. once a freak always a freak)

[Lima Juliet]

multi faceted

How on earth is just a SAR/GMTI capability anywhere near "multi faceted"? :confused:

LJ

[Prop-Ed]

LJ,

Is this what the young uns call; “a Wah”?

See the big metal birds with one engine? They are called “single engine aeroplanes”.

See the bigger metal birds with two engines? They are called “multi engine aeroplanes”.

See where I’m going with this?

Anyway, my advice stands. Do some legwork yourself and find out exactly what it can actually do with “just a SAR/GMTI capability"….(don’t take anyone’s word for it). :ok:

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Prop Ed, cheers for replying.

It was more the comments implying deeper knowledge; iRaven talks about how Sentinel's definitely out in 2015 post-Afghanistan, you and others seem to say with great certainty that it's not.

I wouldn't want to get into arguments over simple numbers; it means nothing to me if Sentinel's got a 9hr or an 8hr endurance in certain prevailing temperatures; but I am interested in whether or not it's well received. The GMTI stuff seems useful, but I wasn't convinced the majority of the SAR stuff was better than Reaper's; just that it was able to grab a wider area and the platform was obviously a lot faster.

Is iRaven right when he says it's not bringing much to the party, especially in terms of immediately exploitable intelligence and imagery? Or is it actually much more rapid and he's wrong; or is he right it's slow but everyone's actually happy with that?

Most importantly, he seems certain it's off after Afghanistan, and as a non-Waddington person I had thought that was as written in stone as the rest of the SDSR announcements. You seemed really sure it'd get a stay of execution; any chance you could expand on that? Has it caught some high-up eyes? And any idea what might be up for the chop to sustain it...?

[Lima Juliet]

LJ,

Is this what the young uns call; “a Wah”?

See the big metal birds with one engine? They are called “single engine aeroplanes”.

See the bigger metal birds with two engines? They are called “multi engine aeroplanes”.

See where I’m going with this?

Anyway, my advice stands. Do some legwork yourself and find out exactly what it can actually do with “just a SAR/GMTI capability"….(don’t take anyone’s word for it).

Prop-Ed

Seeing as I was the lead for Reaper and some other ISTAR assets until 11 days ago (when I retired), I would be very interested to hear your definition of "multi faceted". In fact, I also ran ASTOR (before it changed to Sentinel) for the FLC in late 2009/early 2010 for ~4 months, so I believe I know a fair bit about the program and its foibles.

Now Reaper, with SAR/GMTI (with a comprehensive software suite to manipulate the collect), EO/IR, GBU-12, AGM-114, BLOS+LOS comms and other payloads is what I would call "multi-faceted"! :ok:

So do enlighten us, old bean. You seem quick to rubbish comments but slow (despite prompting) to come up with tangible facts to back up your bold expressions.

LJ

[Prop-Ed]

LJ,

This is agonizing,

Don’t listen to me. Don’t listen to anyone on here to claims to “know everything”. My “tangible facts” have no more credibility than anyone else’s on here. That is more or less the point I’ve been trying to make for a while now.

Why someone as experienced and knowledgeable as the 2Gp lead for Reaper and some other ISTAR assets until 11 days ago (not Sentinel I assume, OLD BEAN) should have to pimp for info on PPRuNe is beyond me. I’m a little embarrassed for you in that respect. However, by all means feel free to inject your extensive Sentinel knowledge into the mix. Everyone else has.
In fact, what you don’t know, just make up? No one will know the difference.

From your lofty position you still must have some old chum’s phone numbers in the various CAOCs. Call them and hear firsthand how the Sentinel is regarded in terms of current Ops? That might have a bit more cred than something “some dude who claims to be an expert” wrote on his laptop whilst sat in his pants eating potnoodles?

[Backwards PLT]

Prop-Ed, I think your bluff and bluster is being called. It is no great secret that ASTOR was of limited utility in Afghanistan and claiming SAR and GMTI is multi-faceted is stretching things a little.

On the other hand Libya was a far better theatre for the system and there may be the possibility that Libya could save it, but the fundamentals stay the same, it is an expensive one trick pony that falls in the "nice to have" camp.

Looking at the defence big picture, I'd rather we had an MPA (and I'm definitely not a Nimrod guy).

[Lima Juliet]

The saddest thing for me, Prop-Ed, is that there is truth in all of the posts (including your mate iR). You seem to be "wire locked" into a defensive line of attack on anyone who has a bad word about Sentinel, when quite simply, every asset has issues/foibles to a lesser or larger extent.

LJ

[hval]

Prop-Ed,

I agree with LJ, totally. From what I have heard (Ladybird book of planes, or some such), Sentinel is by no means perfect, and does have issues. I also believe that you have been somewhat abrasive and defensive without actually arguing your point.

I would love to know what you believe; and why.

As has been posted previously I believe Sentinel has its uses, but is it value for money or is there a better product out there? Unfortunately in these days of being broke we can not afford much.

I do believe that Sentinel can be made in to a very useful asset, but is it worth it? What life is left in the hulls for instance? What would be the total cost?

In my opinion UAVs are not a total solution, but if the the systems fitted are better than what is within Sentinel, are we not better off going with them? Please remember that we can no longer afford what we want, not by a long shot.

Remember, it is great wearing your heart on your sleeve (I am exactly the same) but please have a good argument.

[Prop-Ed]

Backwards PLT,

I’m not entirely sure how my original post on this thread, which pointed out; that the opinions of one nutjob may not be as factually accurate as he would have us believe, has turned/degenerated into my “Bluff and Bluster” being called!?

It probably won’t take Jessica Fletcher to work out what I do for a living and where I work. So, to that end, I’ve (at times) been trying to give my best steer regarding the truth/balls written and read by the PPRuNe hardcore who seem unable to find any alternative source of learning and think PPRuNe forms MOD and Governmental defense policy. :ugh:

[Corporal Clott]

Prop-Ed

There seems to be a swell of concensus that your goose is on Gas Mark 5 and nearly done :=

CPL Clott

[Prop-Ed]

It would seem that way.....I'll know better next time.

Ops normal gang, carry on.

[Sentia]

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21528%3Aaxed-sentinel-reconnaissance-aircraft-could-be-reprieved-after-libya-performance&catid=35%3AAerospace&Itemid=107

CAS statement on future for the platform. Standby for more one trick pony stuff.

[grousehunter]

Sentinal did very well during the recent Libya operation, no one could really argue that. However; if we decide to keep the platform (perhaps minus the ground elements?) then what do we remove in its place? SDSR was a treasury run money saving exercise. We still need to meet those savings. Any suggestions?

[Courtney Mil]

A friend of mine brought it into service and took it on its first deployment. A well respected operator. Whilst he acknlowledges some short falls, he felt it had done some good stuff and contributed a lot to the picture. In fact, the GMTI picture has been central to the op and will be for a while to come.

SDSR or not, there are those in the corridors that haven't yet given up on R1 - as Prop-Ed says.

Prop-Ed, don't give up the posts.

[pr00ne]

grousehunter,

Well,seeing as the entire military SAR capability has just been **** canned and will result in the closure of 22, 202, 203 and 771 Squadrons, SARTU and the Sea King fleet, how about that as a suggestion?

[Biggus]

Given that the military has always talked about ceasing Sea King SAR ops by 2016, then presumably the closure of 22, 202, 203 and 771 Sqns, etc, was already factored into SDSR planning?


I did say "presumably"..... :ugh: