UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft - An Urgent Requirement
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Outside the Matz
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am truly excited. A box of magic modified to detect ships ! Possibly a periscope. This is ground breaking. Oooooh.
Apologies but this sounds like a WW2 press release.
Apologies but this sounds like a WW2 press release.
Scepticism isn't negativity
The reason some of us are wary of what the MOD do with regard to our maritime capability is that some of us know precisely what we have lost.
I am not sure that those currently in the MOD are fully aware of the scale of the task ahead of us to recover this.
There will be a day in the run up to the next General Election when a politician will say that they have spent £xM on a new maritime system. To some, maybe even to a lot this will sound like a significant step has been taken.
When in all probability all we will have is an aircraft looking for a role with a new 'software drop'.
You can't fault Raytheon, as I said earlier - their job like all the others in the defence industry is to make money for their shareholders.
But you can't help wondering if that money could have been better spent on ... oh I don't know ... maybe an extension to the Seedcorn initiative?
I am not sure that those currently in the MOD are fully aware of the scale of the task ahead of us to recover this.
There will be a day in the run up to the next General Election when a politician will say that they have spent £xM on a new maritime system. To some, maybe even to a lot this will sound like a significant step has been taken.
When in all probability all we will have is an aircraft looking for a role with a new 'software drop'.
You can't fault Raytheon, as I said earlier - their job like all the others in the defence industry is to make money for their shareholders.
But you can't help wondering if that money could have been better spent on ... oh I don't know ... maybe an extension to the Seedcorn initiative?
So you have checked with MoD and the various end-users to confirm that this is going ahead without them championing the requirement?
I am one of those end-users who works very closely with MoD, JFC Cap, HQ NAVY, FLEET Ops, HQ AIR, DI Mar, AWC and MWC and I have seen no staffwork asking for KUR input to a Sentinel radar upgrade (unlike another potential platform that you are no doubt aware of). Considering that maritime aware SME's from the above departments are limited to a few individuals that all know each other, I am intrigued to exactly who is championing this requirement. My suspicion is that it is being driven by Raytheon and/or Sentinel operators looking to find a use for the aircraft.
The new capability looks pretty good to me but happy to listen.
What is NOT required is an aircraft that manages a surface picture from 42,000 ft and only in sea state 3 or better. It is also of no use being able to report 2 days after landing that it had 106 radar contacts in the tasked area of which, 32 may have related to AIS contacts and one of them may have been the CoI.
So if you are saying that Sentinel will be able to drop down to 200 ft, visually identify contacts, take high quality photographs and report the details immediately to HQ, then it will possibly be worth it, although I still do not see the point of spending any money on a platform that has a shelf life of 3 years.
Many of us are not convinced that it is a welcome step forward and as HAS59 says, there is potential for this upgrade to muddy the waters on the need for a real MPA/MMA.
IMHO, we would be better using the services of someone like Direct Flight who have a proven ability to deliver the requirement and are probably significantly cheaper than Raytheon.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sussex By The Sea
Age: 79
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good summary PA...
At least Sentinel would not be sidetracked into putting sonobuoys on all the DRC's it gained to see whether there was actually anything there - or are we saying that DRC's are a thing of the past with current technology? I seem to remember that was once claimed for Searchwater. Mind you it would be quite a talking point - an MPA asset that could neither classify nor attack a submerged target
At least Sentinel would not be sidetracked into putting sonobuoys on all the DRC's it gained to see whether there was actually anything there - or are we saying that DRC's are a thing of the past with current technology? I seem to remember that was once claimed for Searchwater. Mind you it would be quite a talking point - an MPA asset that could neither classify nor attack a submerged target
The maritime function is especially seen as a quick win, given that this would largely be a software upgrade to the sensor
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I am not sure that those currently in the MOD are fully aware of the scale of the task ahead of us to recover this."
HAS - I don't believe there is any intention to replace what we had previously
if we're lucky we'll get some P-8's with some cominality with our Cousins that will have some anti-sub capability
if we're unlucky it will be some turboprop's tasked with maritime patrol and search & rescue
The country is still not out of the woods financially and with people screaming that they should spend more and more on things like the NHS the defence budget will continue under a great deal of strain
HAS - I don't believe there is any intention to replace what we had previously
if we're lucky we'll get some P-8's with some cominality with our Cousins that will have some anti-sub capability
if we're unlucky it will be some turboprop's tasked with maritime patrol and search & rescue
The country is still not out of the woods financially and with people screaming that they should spend more and more on things like the NHS the defence budget will continue under a great deal of strain
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
If not, they should be. The budget numbers are arse about face. If your defence is ****, you needn't worry about health, education or welfare. Defence seems to be taken for granted, rather than planned for and budgeted accordingly. People then (including me) get all upset when the latest "right thing to do on the international stage" reveals that everything is held together by Harry Black Maskers and goodwill.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JTO,
One of the funniest things I've read in a long time
It is precisely this sort of thing that buggers upgrade programs across every industry, not just aviation. Shame on Raytheon if they are pedalling such utter tripe.
One of the funniest things I've read in a long time
even for something as low risk as a software drop
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
In fairness, a software-only drop is likely to be less of a clusterfcuk than a combined hardware AND software upgrade.
Not to minimize the potential pitfalls of software changes (I am all too familiar with those!), but it's worse when the hardware changes too!
Not to minimize the potential pitfalls of software changes (I am all too familiar with those!), but it's worse when the hardware changes too!
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roadster,
Agree completely about a combined hardware and software upgrade, but anyone who thinks a software drop is a simple upgrade is living in cloud cuckoo land.
I see it everyday on systems a lot simpler than the Sentinel radar system, in the main because programming has become too accessible and anyone who manages
Agree completely about a combined hardware and software upgrade, but anyone who thinks a software drop is a simple upgrade is living in cloud cuckoo land.
I see it everyday on systems a lot simpler than the Sentinel radar system, in the main because programming has become too accessible and anyone who manages
10 PRINT "Hello World";
20 GOTO 10;
thinks they're an ace programmer!
20 GOTO 10;
QTR, do you see monsters under every bed? Software drops are not unusual for Sentinel, testing and either accepting or rejecting is also routine and the tweaks being applied have already flown on a similar radar for quite some time.
It really is nothing compared with modifying and fielding the original system. There are other modifications on the platform that provide more programatic risk than this.
I am surprised that any of our aircraft ever get off the ground with such doom-merchants around. Modifying and upgrading mission systems is routine across almost all our operational platforms.
It really is nothing compared with modifying and fielding the original system. There are other modifications on the platform that provide more programatic risk than this.
I am surprised that any of our aircraft ever get off the ground with such doom-merchants around. Modifying and upgrading mission systems is routine across almost all our operational platforms.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JTO,
No not a doom merchant and well aware of the upgrades that all aircraft get - I was involved in this for a fair chunk of my time in the RAF so know exactly what is involved. Tweaking an existing system is one thing but adding a new function is something altogether new and never that simple. That it is flying on a similar radar is no guarantee that it will work on Sentinel and I do not doubt that there are other systems with greater programatic risk attached, but there is always a danger with this sort of upgrade that things may get worse before they get better.
If it works as Raytheon promise/claim, then great, but I will remain sceptical that such a change can be termed as 'a simple software drop' for nothing more than the simple fact that it is not.
No not a doom merchant and well aware of the upgrades that all aircraft get - I was involved in this for a fair chunk of my time in the RAF so know exactly what is involved. Tweaking an existing system is one thing but adding a new function is something altogether new and never that simple. That it is flying on a similar radar is no guarantee that it will work on Sentinel and I do not doubt that there are other systems with greater programatic risk attached, but there is always a danger with this sort of upgrade that things may get worse before they get better.
If it works as Raytheon promise/claim, then great, but I will remain sceptical that such a change can be termed as 'a simple software drop' for nothing more than the simple fact that it is not.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a bl**dy good reason that the MRA4 had "A" in the designation. And "R" for that matter. The "R" bit is much much more than just "seeing" a target. And this platform is incapable of the "A" bit.
Get a grip, folks.
A toothless poodle.
Get a grip, folks.
A toothless poodle.
Hmm, a single contract for the development AND installation of an unproven upgrade that can potentially detect periscopes. If MoD haven’t thought through the Ministerial briefing, the chances are that Raytheon is, indeed, driving this. Too much scope for requirement creep.
And the talk of Crowsnest. I can’t understand why this is taking so long. The latest "solution” is little different from the original winning bid in 1994 (the subject of a political overrule). My guess is another company has been paid to repeat the work of the original design, with no-one realising the latter actually exists. Which kind of begs the question what the original design would be like, and capable of, 20+ years later.
It all adds up to a dangerous loss of expertise across the many MoD disciplines (not just operators) required to deliver Maritime capability.
And the talk of Crowsnest. I can’t understand why this is taking so long. The latest "solution” is little different from the original winning bid in 1994 (the subject of a political overrule). My guess is another company has been paid to repeat the work of the original design, with no-one realising the latter actually exists. Which kind of begs the question what the original design would be like, and capable of, 20+ years later.
It all adds up to a dangerous loss of expertise across the many MoD disciplines (not just operators) required to deliver Maritime capability.
i think folks are getting carried away with the maritime aspect! My understanding is that 1 Sentinel has been/will be taken out of the forward fleet for trials use. One aspect of this is looking if the capability against maritime targets can be improved.
Politicians have now wrapped this up as though the aircraft is going to be a Nimrod replacement - it is not! Whether it will be used to supplement Poseidon, who knows - it is just an R&D project at the moment!!
Politicians have now wrapped this up as though the aircraft is going to be a Nimrod replacement - it is not! Whether it will be used to supplement Poseidon, who knows - it is just an R&D project at the moment!!
Thankfully Tuc, none if that is true for this programme. Although the involvement of Raytheon is a given as they have the contract to support the platform and provide the software updates to the mission systems. I'm not sure how you would get in a completely different team to go from software version x.y to version x.z. Ignoring the support contract, IPR and legal niceties where would you get a team from that could step in and write one specific update as part of a series of updates at a drop of a hat?
Incidentally, not one poster on this forum has suggested that this will satisfy our need for an MPA/MMA and this upgrade is not challenging that potential funding line. With so few assets we need to get the biggest bang for our buck that we can. I do not understand why so many are getting so worked up over this. I didn't see such vitriol with all the enhancements for overland work that have been fielded in the last couple of years.
Incidentally, not one poster on this forum has suggested that this will satisfy our need for an MPA/MMA and this upgrade is not challenging that potential funding line. With so few assets we need to get the biggest bang for our buck that we can. I do not understand why so many are getting so worked up over this. I didn't see such vitriol with all the enhancements for overland work that have been fielded in the last couple of years.
PA,
Apart from 3 or 4 new capabilities I can only see the platform providing a supporting role to true maritime capabilities. Its routine strengths will be in the littoral domain, long-range radar ID of surface contacts, very low RCS contacts, plus the usual AIS correlation, surface search and link node. Of course, the platform itself can travel a long way and reposition at quite a speed. Clearly the new stuff is not is the public domain, despite the fruitless guessing of some on here who should know better.
Sentinel cannot replace or even touch the sides of what we need an MMA to do. But technology has moved on and Sentinel's COTS, open-archetecture windows-based systems has allowed (potentially) something to be fielded that could be quite remarkable. If not, then Raytheon will miss out on the money. Whilst I believe that these new capabilities will endure I do not see a long-term future for them hosted on Sentinel and they will probably migrate to another platform in due course, but probably beyond the current 2018 timeframe.
Sorry to be a bit vague, but you know how it is.
Apart from 3 or 4 new capabilities I can only see the platform providing a supporting role to true maritime capabilities. Its routine strengths will be in the littoral domain, long-range radar ID of surface contacts, very low RCS contacts, plus the usual AIS correlation, surface search and link node. Of course, the platform itself can travel a long way and reposition at quite a speed. Clearly the new stuff is not is the public domain, despite the fruitless guessing of some on here who should know better.
Sentinel cannot replace or even touch the sides of what we need an MMA to do. But technology has moved on and Sentinel's COTS, open-archetecture windows-based systems has allowed (potentially) something to be fielded that could be quite remarkable. If not, then Raytheon will miss out on the money. Whilst I believe that these new capabilities will endure I do not see a long-term future for them hosted on Sentinel and they will probably migrate to another platform in due course, but probably beyond the current 2018 timeframe.
Sorry to be a bit vague, but you know how it is.
thread drift
Maybe this Sentinel story should have had its own thread but ...
It is worth mentioning that no Maritime Patrol aircraft ever ID'd a target on its radar or any other sensor ...
The people operating the sensors did. They did so because they had been trained to do so by others with experience in doing so.
Even the best trained hunter of kidnapped schoolchildren is probably not going to be prepared to tell (on radar) the difference between a Mistral LPD and a Korean Vehicle Carrier, or a Stergushchy frigate and an oligarch's yacht.
Fixing up the jet to acquire a 'maritime' radar contact might just be possible - making sense of it however is another game altogether.
To suggest that one of the Sentinel's strengths is "...long range radar ID of surface contacts ..." is unlikely. Please tell me they have not sold some spurious automatic ID software!
I hope this will be seen as an experiment into what is possible, but I fear it will be 'sexed-up' into being an actual capability.
When the MMA comes into service it will have with it a plan of how to train the operators. Buying the kit is just the easy part.
It is worth mentioning that no Maritime Patrol aircraft ever ID'd a target on its radar or any other sensor ...
The people operating the sensors did. They did so because they had been trained to do so by others with experience in doing so.
Even the best trained hunter of kidnapped schoolchildren is probably not going to be prepared to tell (on radar) the difference between a Mistral LPD and a Korean Vehicle Carrier, or a Stergushchy frigate and an oligarch's yacht.
Fixing up the jet to acquire a 'maritime' radar contact might just be possible - making sense of it however is another game altogether.
To suggest that one of the Sentinel's strengths is "...long range radar ID of surface contacts ..." is unlikely. Please tell me they have not sold some spurious automatic ID software!
I hope this will be seen as an experiment into what is possible, but I fear it will be 'sexed-up' into being an actual capability.
When the MMA comes into service it will have with it a plan of how to train the operators. Buying the kit is just the easy part.