View Full Version : RAF Sentinel R1?
GLIDER 90
14th May 2018, 12:53
Afternoon All
With understanding that the RAF Sentinel R1 Aircraft will be withdrawn from service in 2021. With a short service life I would have thought with all state of the art equipment and surveillance & Airborne Battlefield equipment it would have gone on for another 30 years?
Glider 90
camelspyyder
14th May 2018, 13:27
Afternoon All
With understanding that the RAF Sentinel R1 Aircraft will be withdrawn from service in 2021. With a short service life I would have thought with all state of the art equipment and surveillance & Airborne Battlefield equipment it would have gone on for another 30 years?
Glider 90
The thing about "state of the art" electronic equipment is that by the time you get it into service it is no longer "state of the art" and 5 years later it's antique in computing terms.
e.g. Yellowgate, a 60's / 70's tech ESM system entered service in the mid 80's lumbered with 8 inch Floppy Disk drives and processors incapable of dealing with the amount of data.
The ASTOR project dates back to the 90's - remember the 286 386 486 PC's? Productivity programs without GUI's? Hard drive capacities measured in MB not GB or TB?
The only positive reason to keep it IMHO is that Vlad is more likely now than at any time since the Cold War to send masses of tanks across the North German Plain - exactly what ASTOR was designed for in the first place.
NutLoose
14th May 2018, 13:51
USAF Or NATO Should Snap Up The RAF's Retiring R1 Sentinel Radar Planes - The Drive (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/11614/usaf-or-nato-should-snap-up-the-rafs-retiring-r1-sentinel-radar-planes)
Out Of Trim
14th May 2018, 17:43
I vote we keep them. Seeing as they are bought and paid for; their operating costs can't be that high! I'm sure their capabilities are still useful to both us and NATO.
Perhaps we could get NATO to part fund the operating expenses. ;)
In February 2012 it was announced that Sentinel would be offered as the UK contribution to NATO's Alliance Ground Surveillance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Ground_Surveillance) (AGS) collaboration, complementing NATO RQ-4 Global Hawks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RQ-4_Global_Hawk) and French Heron TPs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heron_TP).[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raytheon_Sentinel#cite_note-15)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raytheon_Sentinel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raytheon_Sentinel#cite_note-15)
Melchett01
14th May 2018, 19:57
Isn’t Protector going to have SAR/MTI fit? (RPAS not my area, so I’m a bit out of the loop). If so, I suspect you might get similar or better given the longer loiter time than a manned platform. There’s more than one way to skin the battlefield surveillance cat, but from a parochial point of view it’s never great seeing sqns going.
All that said, I never understood why we never made more from our collective RW fleets in terms of battlefield reconnaissance and reporting. With a bit of clever thinking it wouldn’t be hard to equip all RW with sensors to make use of the fact that they operate close to the forward edge of the battle space and conceptually you would just be updating the former spotter / recce role we used to do anyway.
NutLoose
14th May 2018, 20:25
Isn’t Protector going to have SAR/MTI fit? (RPAS not my area, so I’m a bit out of the loop). If so, I suspect you might get similar or better given the longer loiter time than a manned platform. There’s more than one way to skin the battlefield surveillance cat, but from a parochial point of view it’s never great seeing sqns going.
All that said, I never understood why we never made more from our collective RW fleets in terms of battlefield reconnaissance and reporting. With a bit of clever thinking it wouldn’t be hard to equip all RW with sensors to make use of the fact that they operate close to the forward edge of the battle space and conceptually you would just be updating the former spotter / recce role we used to do anyway.
That is a far to sensible and logical approach, please desist, it might be catching :)
Evalu8ter
15th May 2018, 09:25
Melchett,
Indeed old chap - the USMC see it that way....as Lt Gen Davies USMC (ret) put it
“MAGTF EW transitions the Marine Corps from a focus on low density/high-demand EW platforms, to a distributed, platform-agnostic strategy – where every platform contributes/ functions as a sensor, shooter and sharer – to include EW.”
Having recently taken part in a number of NATO research projects looking at future vertical lift technology, the concept of "non-traditional" and distributed ISR is alive and well. Just need to fund it........
tucumseh
20th May 2018, 16:55
The ASTOR project dates back to the 90's - remember the 286 386 486 PC's?
ASTOR was our Director's baby in the 80s, when any computer we had was more likely to be a privately owned Commodore or BBC. He took early retirement and went to work for the company.
Haraka
21st May 2018, 05:14
Before that of course the CASTOR saga dragging on through the 80's flying Canberra ,Islander (Preferred by the Army) platforms with British Radars.
Some might remember the joke: CASTOR - "Can Anybody State The Operational Requirement?"
chopper2004
21st May 2018, 11:55
Makes you wonder why the AAC did not follow suit like the US Army with their large fleet of SEMA over the decades. Namely Beechcraft series (RU-21, RC-12) Grumman OV1 Mohawk. YO-3A to today's ISTAR platforms also in form of RC-12, civ King Air 350, EO-7, etc etc. Then again one factor could be the RAF mantra of they fly fix wing and no one else should similar to the disputes between the USAF and US Army Aviation (CV-2/C-7A Caribou, FAC proposal A-4/T-37/NF-159 in 50s/60s).
Without stepping into OPSEC, one would hope the Shadow folks would have some Green berets on staff
cheers
chopper2004
21st May 2018, 12:54
Isn’t Protector going to have SAR/MTI fit? (RPAS not my area, so I’m a bit out of the loop). If so, I suspect you might get similar or better given the longer loiter time than a manned platform. There’s more than one way to skin the battlefield surveillance cat, but from a parochial point of view it’s never great seeing sqns going.
All that said, I never understood why we never made more from our collective RW fleets in terms of battlefield reconnaissance and reporting. With a bit of clever thinking it wouldn’t be hard to equip all RW with sensors to make use of the fact that they operate close to the forward edge of the battle space and conceptually you would just be updating the former spotter / recce role we used to do anyway.
Reminds me of the US Army Quick Fix I and II (EH-1H and EH-60A) battlefield ELINT gatherers
Think it was either the Army or RN website stating Wildcat is capable of ISR ,
cheers
Evalu8ter
21st May 2018, 15:18
"Think it was either the Army or RN website stating Wildcat is capable of ISR" - I should bl**dy hope so; "FIND" is the justification the AAC used to buy the thing.....it's certainly not "light utility" unless you mean the Colonel and his satchel....
chevvron
23rd May 2018, 12:18
Could always convert one or two back to bizjets for Boris and other ministers could to use .:rolleyes:
H Peacock
23rd May 2018, 13:12
Could always convert one or two back to bizjets for Boris and other ministers could to use .https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies2/icon_rolleyes.gif
They could be modded back into a proper Global, but it would be a lengthy/costly process. Anyway, Boris has said he doesn't like grey aeroplanes!
chevvron
23rd May 2018, 15:28
They could be modded back into a proper Global, but it would be a lengthy/costly process. Anyway, Boris has said he doesn't like grey aeroplanes!
How about a re-paint too.
White on top down to the window line; narrow navy blue line throught the windows, then light grey undersides.https://www.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon6.gif
Wensleydale
23rd May 2018, 19:32
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Raf-sentinel-ZJ692-071029-01cr-16.jpg/640px-Raf-sentinel-ZJ692-071029-01cr-16.jpg
As you can see, the aircraft can easily be modified to a flying horse box for the Household Cavalry.
DCThumb
23rd May 2018, 21:29
They can never be converted back into the original spec as some of the mods are effectively irreversible.
They would make really useful aerial research platforms tho - strong point under the fuselage could carry a variety of payloads, standard interfaces to commercial PC servers.
chevvron
24th May 2018, 05:57
They can never be converted back into the original spec as some of the mods are effectively irreversible.
They would make really useful aerial research platforms tho - strong point under the fuselage could carry a variety of payloads, standard interfaces to commercial PC servers.
Or even a Lindholme Dinghy pack.https://www.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon3.gif
Wander00
24th May 2018, 08:40
You could hang Boris under there - might be a bit bigger than the pod though
MPN11
24th May 2018, 10:26
Bit expensive if you bang the nose wheel down hard ... there's not a lot of clearance there!
H Peacock
24th May 2018, 18:55
Bit expensive if you bang the nose wheel down hard ... there's not a lot of clearance there!
Not much - but just enough. That poor nosewheel has been 'Autobrake-high-ed' into the runway many a time. I believe someone even managed to touch the nosewheel down before the mains!
Wander00
25th May 2018, 09:24
But you hung Boris face down then you could rub his nose in the dirt......
Makes you wonder why the AAC did not follow suit like the US Army with their large fleet of SEMA over the decades. Namely Beechcraft series
https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/shadow-r1/
651 Squadron - Army Air Corps (http://www.eliteukforces.info/air-support/651-Squadron/)