RAF Sentinal Fleet sold to possibly the US Army

[NutLoose]

It seems someone values them

A source on the team that was supposed to be scrapping the aircraft last night told me:

“The Ministry of Defence has accepted a joint bid from Raytheon USA/Bombardier. This will involve us making the aircraft flyable again to go over to the States. The rumoured end customer is the U.S. Army.”

It is understood that much of the systems had already been stripped out in preparation for scrapping. When I asked what work is being done on them in the UK, I was told:

[i]“Work has started to make them serviceable for flight already. Just enough to get them over the pond. Nothing to do with the mission side.”

It’s reasonable to assume that work will be done in the United States to provide new/updated mission systems.

The move is somewhat controversial as the Ministry of Defence previously advise that the aircraft were to be sold for scrap and “not for reuse”. According to the Ministry of Defence in a potential sales notice last year:

“The Defence Equipment Sales Authority (DESA) is inviting expressions of interest from Companies interested in being considered for receiving an Invitation to Tender (ITT) in respect of the proposed sale of the aircraft for stripping so to harvest all reusable parts for potential resale, recycling or disposal and final dismantling and removal of the remaining platforms. Note these aircraft are not for reuse.“

It would seem the Ministry of Defence have changed their minds on that last point.


https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-sentinel-aircraft-to-be-sold-to-u-s-army-instead-of-being-scrapped/

[NutLoose]

I am surprised there are no comments on what is a major change in policy regarding the fleet and its disposal.

[ORAC]

I son5 see how selling a couple of second hand airframes, stripped of their mission equipment, is a major policy change of policy.

The reported reason they were being scrapped is that, with all the various holes and airframe modifications, it was cheaper for a purchaser to buy new rather than repair. If the US Army think they can fit new kit in them as is and have offered more than the scrap value then, from a disposal point of view, it’s a win-win situation.

Whether the role fulfilled was essential, can be better filled using another existing platform, can be gapped etc, is a separate argument.

[Davef68]

Presumably for the HADES/ARES program.

[Chugalug2]

I son5 see how selling a couple of second hand airframes, stripped of their mission equipment, is a major policy change of policy.

The reported reason they were being scrapped is that, with all the various holes and airframe modifications, it was cheaper for a purchaser to buy new rather than repair. If the US Army think they can fit new kit in them as is and have offered more than the scrap value then, from a disposal point of view, it’s a win-win situation.

Whether the role fulfilled was essential, can be better filled using another existing platform, can be gapped etc, is a separate argument.
The different stance implies that whereas the airframes were to be broken up they are now deemed as fit to fly, ie airworthy. If that was the state all along why the proviso that they be scrapped as is? Has the MOD just found all the paperwork confirming airworthiness stuffed down the back of the sofa? That would certainly be an improvement on the usual storage facilities employed. However these aircraft are flown out by their new owners it will be via UK airspace. So who is authorising that, and on what basis?

It wouldn't be the first time, so hardly a change of policy. Are they to be followed by formations of Hawk T1's in due course, or are they still looking for that paperwork?

[dctyke]

The different stance implies that whereas the airframes were to be broken up they are now deemed as fit to fly, ie airworthy. If that was the state all along why the proviso that they be scrapped as is? Has the MOD just found all the paperwork confirming airworthiness stuffed down the back of the sofa? That would certainly be an improvement on the usual storage facilities employed. However these aircraft are flown out by their new owners it will be via UK airspace. So who is authorising that, and on what basis?

It wouldn't be the first time, so hardly a change of policy. Are they to be followed by formations of Hawk T1's in due course, or are they still looking for that paperwork?

one flight out of U.K. authorisation? Plenty of us have signed one flight only Red/Green Line to get an aircraft back to home base.

[GeeRam]

It must look really daft from the outside observer to be selling these aircraft which presumably are not in the least bit bit shagged out, and at the same time putting out a tender for an identical type to replace the BAe 146's.........
I presume there must be an actual sensible reason(s) why they just don't remove the mission kit not needed and use these for that role....other than lack of joined up common sense thinking in the MOD..??

[Chugalug2]

one flight out of U.K. authorisation? Plenty of us have signed one flight only Red/Green Line to get an aircraft back to home base.

So the F700 will state the airworthiness Red/Green Line status? I very much doubt that.

[Chugalug2]

It must look really daft from the outside observer to be selling these aircraft which presumably are not in the least bit bit shagged out, and at the same time putting out a tender for an identical type to replace the BAe 146's.........
I presume there must be an actual sensible reason(s) why they just don't remove the mission kit not needed and use these for that role....other than lack of joined up common sense thinking in the MOD..??

A very good point GR! Somebody should ask them.

[NutLoose]

Err lots of holes in the fuselage for all the specialised kit and lots of external bits etc, and a bare interior with just soundproofing, it would probably cost as much as a new one to put it to a VIP standard, let alone no windows.


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x576/_52668734_52668733_4e8c90205968894963d9e52cf8e0f4ddae311ace. jpg

[dctyke]

So the F700 will state the airworthiness Red/Green Line status? I very much doubt that.

It will state the fault(s) or limitations on the particular airframe and the person authorising the aircraft to fly within certain constraints. For example monitoring a crack, one flight to base only etc. That person, provided they are authorised will not have to go to a higher authority to allow it although would seek advice if circumstances allowed. On a squadron the SEngO, experienced JEngO and Eng WO would have that authorisation.

[NutLoose]

Experimental Airworthiness Certificates (http://www.faa-aircraft-certification.com/experimental-airworthiness-certificates.html)
http://www.faa-aircraft-certification.com/provisional-airworthiness-certification.html

https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-industry/Aircraft/Airworthiness/Certificates-and-permits/Permits-to-fly/Part-21-temporary-Permits-to-Fly/


Commission Regulation (EU) 748/2012 Subpart P allows for the issue of a Permit to Fly to an Part 21 aircraft when the Certificate of Airworthiness (CAA Form 25) or Restricted C of A (CAA Form 24) is temporarily invalid or when an aircraft is unable to comply with the regulations set for the issue of a C of A but is still capable of safe flight under defined conditions.

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/thedewline/status/1461447415165243394?s=21

[Chugalug2]

It will state the fault(s) or limitations on the particular airframe and the person authorising the aircraft to fly within certain constraints. For example monitoring a crack, one flight to base only etc. That person, provided they are authorised will not have to go to a higher authority to allow it although would seek advice if circumstances allowed. On a squadron the SEngO, experienced JEngO and Eng WO would have that authorisation.

So it pre-supposes a fully airworthy aircraft with the exception of the specific named fault for which the dispensation of a single flight (RTB) is being authorised. So will these two aircraft fit that bill? Will the person authorising their flights out of UK airspace be able to make such a supposition? If so, how? He or She would be well advised to seek the advice from higher authority that you mention. In writing, with a dated and named signature!

PS just seen your link, Nutloose. Thank you. So the CAA, and not the regulatory authority responsible for the aircrafts' airworthiness (the MAA), issues the permit to fly. Why is that? How would the CAA be assured of the risks involved, or do they simply cross their fingers (rather as the MAA does)?

[Rigga]

Err lots of holes in the fuselage for all the specialised kit and lots of external bits etc, and a bare interior with just soundproofing, it would probably cost as much as a new one to put it to a VIP standard, let alone no windows.


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x576/_52668734_52668733_4e8c90205968894963d9e52cf8e0f4ddae311ace. jpg
Quite often seen on the Interiors Design market - additional holes and even large gaps aren't really an issue - Skin changes if needed.
I sold three ex-police aircraft and the buyer repaired and refurbished - and resold them for a large profit. There is enough of a market out there for used civil business jets.

[NutLoose]

Chugalug the thing to remember is

BREAKING NEWS | A source has told me that the MoD has accepted a joint bid from Raytheon USA/Bombardier to make Sentinel aircraft flyable to be flown to the United States with the rumour that the end customer for the aircraft will be the U.S. Army.

These are the manufacturers of both items, the systems and the aircraft, as such they could just as easily put them on the USA register and fly them under test conditions, you have to remember before an aircraft is issued with a type certifcate or certificate of airworthiness the manufacturer flies the aircraft and tests it, once deemed acceptable they are issued, Indeed when a manufacturer tests new equipment on an aircraft such as engines it is no longer complying with they type cert or is "airworthy" as it no longer meets the requirements of the CofA. Strange as this may seem I know of one test aircraft that was used by a manufacturer before it was sold with a CofA and it is sold with 0 hours, even though in a test life it may have done hundreds.


Looking for the latest version on LaLa Land is a pain, so this is the UK version for anything that "we used" to build

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP554_Sept_2014_print.pdf

[Sideshow Bob]

So the CAA, and not the regulatory authority responsible for the aircrafts' airworthiness (the MAA), issues the permit to fly. Why is that? How would the CAA be assured of the risks involved, or do they simply cross their fingers (rather as the MAA does)?
It all depends on whether the flight is pre or post sale. I very much doubt that it is pre sale, and post sale, it would be difficult to argue that the aircraft meets the UK ANO dispensation for military aircraft; no ANO dispensation, can't be on the Mil register, can't be under the MAAs regulation.

[NutLoose]

How would the CAA be assured of the risks involved

Civi wise, they might want to see them, they might not, its like everything these days, they farm it out, A Cof A is only valid with an ARC in place, that is an Airworthiness Review Certificate and backs up the C Of A saying the aircraft is still airworthy and that is issued by a CAMO.
I am a CAMO and fully licenced engineer, I do the annual inspection of the aircraft and when satisfied it is airworthy I issue an ARC and send a copy to the CAA thus ensuring the CofA remains concurrent, there is no other input as such from the CAA these days bar the odd inspection.

Airworthiness. All Part 21 aircraft types that qualify for an Part 21 Certificate of Airworthiness (C of A) are issued with a non-expiring C of A, which is validated annually with an Airworthiness Review Certificate (ARC). This annual validation occurs when a new ARC is issued or the validity of a current ARC is extended.

Following the introduction of Annex Vc (Part CAMO) under regulation (EU) 2019/1383, regulation (EU) 1321/2014 now details the rules for continuing airworthiness management organisations which are subject to EASA regulation.. Annex Vc (Part CAMO) of this regulation concerns the continuing airworthiness management for organisations relating to all types of aircraft of EASA aircraft

[sandiego89]

How many airframes are we talking about?

[NutLoose]

Five, first flew 2004, delivered 2007, into service 2008, out of service 2021, so barely run in ;)

During their service life of 12.5 years, the five aircraft flew approximately 32,300 hours roughly distributed across 4,870 sorties

from Wiki

[dctyke]

So it pre-supposes a fully airworthy aircraft with the exception of the specific named fault for which the dispensation of a single flight (RTB) is being authorised. So will these two aircraft fit that bill? Will the person authorising their flights out of UK airspace be able to make such a supposition? If so, how? He or She would be well advised to seek the advice from higher authority that you mention. In writing, with a dated and named signature!

PS just seen your link, Nutloose. Thank you. So the CAA, and not the regulatory authority responsible for the aircrafts' airworthiness (the MAA), issues the permit to fly. Why is that? How would the CAA be assured of the risks involved, or do they simply cross their fingers (rather as the MAA does)?


Chug, I can only answer for my time period 72-07 and aircraft within the RAF, not leaving the RAF to another Air Force.
As a footnote a cannot remember any fast jet that didn’t have its fair share of reds and greens, although reviewed regularly some could be open for very long periods if the fix could only be achieved at a certain depth of servicing. I guess the civilian airline sector must use a similar system or nothing would ever fly.

[NutLoose]

Yup. Jag eng door hinges were a classic, when they sheared off they could only be repaired at deep strip and overhaul as access to the F4 tank was required, so the doors were painted up no door hinges fitted and the airframe parts replaced on Majors.

[Chugalug2]

Thanks dctyke, and I absolutely understand the system you describe. I have to assume though that all those aircraft you so despatched were otherwise airworthy. That is the query I raise with these Sentinels; not their serviceability, not their Red/Green entries, not their deferred defects, just are they airworthy? Presumably the Military Regulator knows the answer to that. Presumably the US Army needs to know the answer to that.

Depending on the intended routeing through UK airspace, those resident below their track might wish to know the answer to that. I know I would. Maybe I do need to know the answer. Perhaps the CAA, if they are to issue the Permit to Fly, will tell us?

[NutLoose]

Look at the VC10 that flew from Abingdon to Filton for conversion, they were just airworthy enough to do the trip.

[Chugalug2]

Look at the VC10 that flew from Abingdon to Filton for conversion, they were just airworthy enough to do the trip.

Is 'airworthy enough' ALARP, is 'airworthy enough' even a thing? Or was it simply unairworthy because it couldn't be proved to be otherwise. :(

[DCThumb]

Quite often seen on the Interiors Design market - additional holes and even large gaps aren't really an issue - Skin changes if needed.
I sold three ex-police aircraft and the buyer repaired and refurbished - and resold them for a large profit. There is enough of a market out there for used civil business jets.

Rigga, if only it were that easy! The chronic lack of investment/botched purchase of these aircraft means that there is lots more to continuing to use these aircraft than the interior!

[Rigga]

Yes, I understand the amounts of looms, back plates and mounting brackets that must've been in use and are still in place even after being 'stripped'. Often not a stopper for the right price.

IIRC, they are civil types (with Mods for operating equipment) and the engineers had (Civil) Part 66 licences to be able to certify them. So, if I'm correct, they could go to the civil market again (Which, I believe, was the original plan anyway!)

[Just This Once...]

@Rigga - No, they did not have a valid TC or even a DO for the aircraft itself in RAF service (long story) and no licences required for RAF personnel. They key thing about this proposal is that Bombardier is actually part of the program. Smells suspiciously like doing it properly...

[NutLoose]

Yes, I understand the amounts of looms, back plates and mounting brackets that must've been in use and are still in place even after being 'stripped'. Often not a stopper for the right price.

IIRC, they are civil types (with Mods for operating equipment) and the engineers had (Civil) Part 66 licences to be able to certify them. So, if I'm correct, they could go to the civil market again (Which, I believe, was the original plan anyway!)


Also without windows, would the added structure to house the windows have ever been installed as it would be cheaper stronger and weight saving just to have skinned it minus openings, it’s not like a freighter conversion where they are replaced with metal blanks that could be changed back. I wouldn’t be surprised if the floor structure was stressed differently for the consoles and sideways facing seats.

[Saint Jack]

There seems to be some confusion here as to who has airworthiness responsibility for these aircraft, MAA or CAA. Also, there is clearly some confusion between "Airworthy" and "Serviceable," I don't know too much about the MAA world, but in the CAA/FAA world these terms have very different meanings and are NOT interchangeable. The partial statement in Post #1, i.e. “Work has started to make them serviceable for flight already. Just enough to get them over the pond. Nothing to do with the mission side.” is probably correct.

[NutLoose]

I thought that was taken as read, most of the kit has already been removed, so it would be just the Airframe they are after readying.

[DCThumb]

Also without windows, would the added structure to house the windows have ever been installed as it would be cheaper stronger and weight saving just to have skinned it minus openings, it’s not like a freighter conversion where they are replaced with metal blanks that could be changed back. I wouldn’t be surprised if the floor structure was stressed differently for the consoles and sideways facing seats.

The aircraft were all made with windows which were blanked out when the green aircraft were converted. At one stage, Raytheon approached BBD and asked if they wanted to buy the windows back as spares. BBD politely declined....and pointed out that they could have built them without windows easily!!

The structural mods to the aircraft, electrical changes, bleed air changes etc. all make it way too expensive to convert the aircraft back to Global Spec - and this was never the plan! Just look at the prices of early Global Express (not even XRS standard) on the used market and you quickly see why it is not economically viable to change the aircraft.

[Krystal n chips]

@Rigga - No, they did not have a valid TC or even a DO for the aircraft itself in RAF service (long story) and no licences required for RAF personnel. They key thing about this proposal is that Bombardier is actually part of the program. Smells suspiciously like doing it properly...

That's intriguing to learn. I was working as a contractor at Waddington not long after the type was introduced and talking to other engineers, applications to work on the type were over subscribed due to the attraction of getting a licence. I am also aware of two other engineers more recently, four years ago in fact, who were also sent on a licence course prior to their posting on type.

[downsizer]

I've never heard of sentinel engineers being licensed, shadow are.

[NutLoose]

I still cannot fathom why the military ever had to go down the licensing route for aircraft on the military register, the previous system pre licensing had worked since the RAF’s inception.

[Wensleydale]

The Sentinel is obviously being bought by the US Army to allow the General to travel with his horse!
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1280x863/sentinel_abcd004ba69026132c3fedc7d678f5de1e8e50cc.jpg

[NutLoose]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43184/unwanted-british-sentinel-radar-planes-to-be-picked-up-by-us-army-report


An update, I do wonder if part of the deal in selling them would be a part ex so to speak against the wanted biz jets to replace the BAe 146 or am I just being far to sensible in MOD land.

After all the tooling, experience and operational skills set is available in the RAF to look after the biz jet variant.

[LincsFM]

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1080x744/fb_img_1653936201560_012dbe9873966d6dc4f936c659cc20883b57106 c.jpg
First one departed Waddo today but had to return 🤣

[DCThumb]

Looks way more like a post maintenance air check - the RAT is out!

[MJ89]

Looks way more like a post maintenance air check - the RAT is out!

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/sold-off-sentinel-surveillance-aircraft-spotted-in-u-s/

[chevvron]

Er bear in mind that 'Tucson Airport' is right next to Davis-Monthan.