Sentinel Relocates to GDC
Prop Ed
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
iRaven
PS.
Ill informed opinion as fact...
Of course, there are those that think they can change the decision like they changed the MRA4 and GR7/9 decisions
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.
• 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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Secret Lincolnshire Airbase
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"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.
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
Come and join the rest of us on Planet Defence-is-broke!
The B Word
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus
re the Islander - see Aircraft ZG989 (Britten-Norman BN-2 Astor C/N 2140) Photo by Malcolm Clarke (Photo ID: AC400719)
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?
re the Islander - see Aircraft ZG989 (Britten-Norman BN-2 Astor C/N 2140) Photo by Malcolm Clarke (Photo ID: AC400719)
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?
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...
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...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Away from here
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
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!!
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by jamesdevice; 21st Oct 2011 at 20:10.
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
"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
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
HC 950 Operations in Libya (14th October 2011)
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).
(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).
"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...
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...
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
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
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Prop-Ed; 22nd Oct 2011 at 17:09.
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.
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.
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...?
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...?
