Sentinel to survive post Afghanistan?
 

It would appear so if the last paragraph of the Evolution portion of this press release comes to fruition.

Quote:

On 3 February 2012, the North Atlantic Council (NAC) decided on a way ahead to collectively cover the costs for operating AGS for the benefit of the Alliance. The decision to engage NATO common funding for infrastructure, satellite communications and operations and support paves the way for awarding the AGS acquisition contract by 13 Allies. In addition, an agreement was reached to make the United Kingdom Sentinel system and the future French Heron TP system available as national contributions-in-kind, partly replacing financial contributions from those two Allies.


NATO - Topic: Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS)

JTO, do we play that game? If we do it is surely a political own goal and a card that can not be played often,

LibDem Thinktank wants it...
 

Interestingly, retention of Sentinel was one of the specific benefits mentioned by the CentreForum paper on scrapping Trident and reinvesting the savings in the conventional forces published on Monday. See the table on page 52.

Seems insane to bin it - and the King Airs.

S41

I thought it was common knowledge that Sentinel would remain.

I thought (standing by to be corrected) that the SDR stated that Sentinel was for the chop in 2015 after the withdrawl from Afghanistan.


If it is to be retained, and all plans can be changed, then presumably some extra money has to be found, or something else has to be chopped instead. Which of these options is the case, or is there a third way...?

Tell that to the guys who have been laid off...

From what I have heard and been briefed, Sentinel is going to funded between the RAF and British Army post-Herrick. Same was said for Reaper.

Just This Once...Yes they do. Hence only way forward is a partnership of funding in recognition that the army are the end user of the platforms output.

So the Army were the Op Ellamy end user then?..................

Yak,

The Army and RN are the end user for most of the RAF capabilities so by the same logic they should fund the RAF! The RAF is a supporting arm for Defence, the RN and Army the supported arms.

... not since 1918 surely ....;)

...and there were no air marshals to blame then, just generals and admirals!

(whose idea it was ......)

No, no, no Teeter!

The RAF obviously create some sort of time travel machine in the future, this allows them to go back to 1918 and lie and cheat to steal the aircraft from the RN and Army, after all no other country in the world seems to think it needs an 'Airforce' :rolleyes:

P.S. I'm pretty sure Air is supported by the Land and the Sea, fact :E

So Ops Northern / Southern Watch, the MR2 long range sorties flown the from the UK, the C-130 humanitarian support flights etc, were all flown in support of either the RN or Army?.......

He's talking garbage, don't rise to it.

Some of the RAF's output does indeed support the other arms (JHC, AT etc), but some is an end in itself in pursuit of the overall national/ war goals (AD for eg).

It could be argued that CAS takes out the enemy frontline & the army support the RAF by occupying the territory that has just been cleared....

It's all a matter of perspective.

By end user, I mean that the Army have experienced the benefits the platform brings and can foresee the void that will exist should it be withdrawn. Pers already support the platform from both services so it is agreed that the funding will be met by both in order to keep it in service post UOR. Yes, I do recognise that the Army is not the end customer in every conflict, however, Afghan is what it is. I don't really see it as a negative for the service since it means that we can keep this important and valuable capability.

Regards,

Yakovlev