Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

RAF Sentinel fleet to be scrapped

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

RAF Sentinel fleet to be scrapped

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 16th Jun 2017, 16:06
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Wales
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
RAF Sentinel fleet to be scrapped

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/raf-scrap-sentinel-surveillance-aircraft-due-cuts/
The RAF Taff is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2017, 16:10
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 859
Received 42 Likes on 21 Posts
Once again...
Saintsman is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2017, 16:32
  #3 (permalink)  
ICM
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bishops Stortford, UK
Age: 82
Posts: 469
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
This link should help:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/raf-...raft-due-cuts/
ICM is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2017, 16:44
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
and so it starts.................
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2017, 16:59
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 63
Posts: 1,854
Received 77 Likes on 43 Posts
Among the comments, I noticed the one about reducing the Army to shore up the RAF and the Navy, reminds of the debate seven to eight years ago when it was the RAF in everyone's sights. Absolute nonsense!

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2017, 17:59
  #6 (permalink)  
SVK
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Somewhere......
Posts: 135
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
Sentinel Scheduled to Retire iaw SDSR 2015 Shocker!
SVK is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2017, 19:27
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Darling - where are we?
Posts: 2,580
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
None of us like to see another sqn go, but in terms of capability can any 'gap' not be covered by Scavenger and P8?
Melchett01 is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2017, 21:01
  #8 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,393
Received 1,586 Likes on 723 Posts
That would seem to depend on the delivery rate, work-up to FOC and commitments of the P-8. With a predominant maritime role and RAF/RN crew composition as opposed to the tasking and crew composition of the Sentinel, it would seem debatable. Another "gap".

Last edited by ORAC; 17th Jun 2017 at 04:25.
ORAC is online now  
Old 16th Jun 2017, 21:16
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Darling - where are we?
Posts: 2,580
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
That would seem to depend on the delivery rate, work-up to FOCUS and commitments of the P-8. With a predominant maritime role and RAF/RN crew composition as opposed to the tasking and crew composition of the Sentinel, it would seem debatable. Another "gap".
I'm thinking more Scavenger/Protector and assuming it comes with a SAR/GMTI fit that might cover Sentinel. I know it's not a like for like replacement, largely because of the platform operating concept, but it could be a replacement if adequate numbers actually turn up. And aren't the USN developing a multi-platform concept of P8s working alongside RQ-4?
Melchett01 is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2017, 21:41
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Considering the financial climate the MOD is operating within, there must also be other platforms in the firing line? When you consider the rationalisation of the FJ and AT Forces, surely it is only a matter of time before someone casts an eye over the SH Force and looks to make some kind of saving.........?
Could be the last? is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2017, 04:29
  #11 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,393
Received 1,586 Likes on 723 Posts
When you consider the rationalisation of the.... AT Force....
From C-130 down to C-130, C-17 and A-400M?
ORAC is online now  
Old 17th Jun 2017, 05:41
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
...and Voyager.
camelspyyder is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2017, 07:35
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
I was considering the 10s and Tristars being replaced by Voyager, and what should have been the replacement of C130J by the 400. But then when you also consider the 146/QC, yes, you most definitely haven't been rationalised........😎

Last edited by Could be the last?; 17th Jun 2017 at 08:07.
Could be the last? is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2017, 15:22
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,707
Received 37 Likes on 23 Posts
Hmm, UKserials are reporting an additional 6 allocations reserved for P-8.......


UK Serials
Davef68 is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2017, 22:57
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Darling - where are we?
Posts: 2,580
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Davef68
Hmm, UKserials are reporting an additional 6 allocations reserved for P-8.......


UK Serials
Interesting. If the suggestion is more P8s, I'd have to say that's a good thing. If we can get a similar SAR/GMTI capability out of other platforms such as Protector and Crowsnest, and not to mention from working alongside JSTARS (despite the article in The Times completely missing these other systems - it's not just The Telegraph to employ YTS journalists!), I think beefing up our maritime patrol capability is a sensible way ahead as an island nation.
Melchett01 is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2017, 23:03
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK.
Posts: 4,390
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Fink about Sharon an' 'er seven kids - wot abat 'em, eh?
Basil is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2017, 08:45
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,164
Received 47 Likes on 23 Posts
The small number of guys and girls on the Sentinel fleet really have had a torrid time. A staccato introduction into service, suffering cuts in the development phase whilst simultaneously deployed on ops and never being allowed to bed down or achieve fully trained steady-state aircrew and groundcrew.

Since 2010 they entered the twilight zone by having almost all support removed, told they were surplus to requirement yet deployed to 2 then 3 operational theatres with no hope of roulemont. The capability moved from a core programme to a UOR; individual total time deployed went off the charts, PJHQ and theatre commanders wanted all aircraft everywhere, leapt on every stutter in output and deferred everything they could to maximise immediate output over medium-term output.

Recent years has seen a glimmer of light to finally fund and sustain the fleet, yet it is back to the chopping block. One hopes someone somewhere learns the lessons how not to treat the personnel (aircrew, groundcrew, contractor and PT staff) that really are the true capability.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2017, 10:25
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 322
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Could be the last?
Considering the financial climate the MOD is operating within, there must also be other platforms in the firing line? When you consider the rationalisation of the FJ and AT Forces, surely it is only a matter of time before someone casts an eye over the SH Force and looks to make some kind of saving.........?
How much more of a saving do you think can be made? We've already slashed the numbers of Puma during the upgrade to 24, scrapped the Sea King Mk4 without replacement (clearly they got Me3, but that is still a significant reduction in overall lift) and imho the new buy of Chinook is likely to be replacement of older airframes rather than a long-term increase in numbers.

If you want to continue to provide lift for Army on Ops as we do now and have done continuously for the past 15+ years, then you need aircraft. The grass is always greener, but we look at the rest of the RAF with envy; twice as many Typhoons as we have helicopters, comparatively new aircraft/capabilities like F35, P8, Reaper/Protector, Voyager, C17, A400, RJ etc... fancy swapping, you'll love tents on Salisbury Plain!
Aynayda Pizaqvick is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2017, 11:44
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,449
Received 72 Likes on 33 Posts
Is that moving the Army of 82,000, 80,000, 65,000 or 55,000?

As for twice as many Typhoons as helicopters, if you compare historic FJ to helo ratios then you are currently doing very well!!
Biggus is online now  
Old 18th Jun 2017, 13:40
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Darling - where are we?
Posts: 2,580
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
JTO,

Despite my thinking that right now we really really need MPA, I do concur that the way this capability has been handled from the outset is shabby, especially from the personnel angle. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the personnel turned round and said 'if that's how you feel, here are the keys we're off'. And the system would have no one to blame other than itself. But as we all know by now, the system either can't or won't grasp that capability and personnel need investing in.
Melchett01 is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.