RAF Sentinal Fleet sold to possibly the US Army
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,819
Received 2,798 Likes
on
1,192 Posts
RAF Sentinal Fleet sold to possibly the US Army
It seems someone values them
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/brit...eing-scrapped/
A source on the team that was supposed to be scrapping the aircraft last night told me:
[i]“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:
“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.
[i]“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:
“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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,819
Received 2,798 Likes
on
1,192 Posts
I am surprised there are no comments on what is a major change in policy regarding the fleet and its disposal.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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 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.
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 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.
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?
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?
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?
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..??
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..??
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..??
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..??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,819
Received 2,798 Likes
on
1,192 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,819
Received 2,798 Likes
on
1,192 Posts
Experimental Airworthiness Certificates
http://www.faa-aircraft-certificatio...ification.html
https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-ind...ermits-to-Fly/
http://www.faa-aircraft-certificatio...ification.html
https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-ind...ermits-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.
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.
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)?
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,819
Received 2,798 Likes
on
1,192 Posts
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...2014_print.pdf
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...2014_print.pdf
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,819
Received 2,798 Likes
on
1,192 Posts
How would the CAA be assured of the risks involved
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,819
Received 2,798 Likes
on
1,192 Posts
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
During their service life of 12.5 years, the five aircraft flew approximately 32,300 hours roughly distributed across 4,870 sorties
from Wiki