Sentinel Relocates to GDC
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Next door
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
"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...
iRaven
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...
iRaven
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
5 Posts
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
CPL Clott
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
it could operate from airfields in Afghanistan, but simply doesn't need to
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
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.
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!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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”?
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”?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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
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
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
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
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Away from here
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
...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...)
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...)
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
5 Posts
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"...
CPL Clott
There might be more than one telling porkies on here in what has turned into a big game of "Top Trumps"...
CPL Clott
A direct lift from the RAF website on the Sentinel R1:
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.
The aircraft will operate at altitudes in excess of 40,000ft with a mission endurance over 9 hours.
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.