Seemed to work ok for Britain in WW2. Unless you're speaking financially where the repayments crippled them.

Hi Dan! One of my really exciting tasks in my 6 weeks as S/L (Air) at MPA was to attend the 'Theatre vehicle liability meeting', chaired by some pongo REMF Lt Col. Although the VC10K was tits-up and was a 'wargoer only' at the time, I mentioned the state of the 1312 Flt vehicle and the fact that some of the permanent staff were swanning about in LWB Landrover station wagons.

"There has to be some expectation appropriate to rank and status", he waffled, attempting to explain why he drove around in such a vehicle. My Boss had already swapped his station wagon for a normal 5-pot Tdi from 1435 - and to allay any accusations of self-interest I refused to have my ancient heap replaced whilst 1312 was still allocated the rotting old wreck which you and I recall. One day on a scramble the thing slowed down when the driver changed up to top gear as it couldn't cope with the runway headwind!

My recommendation was that 1312 should be allocated a brand new Landrover Twin Cab. But I went back to the UK a week later, so I don't know what the final result was - but I can guess :\

Jackonicko , just how long do you think that an open, proper and rigorous consideration of the alternatives would take in this day and age? No doubt the usual BWoS spin and bluster would be much in evidence. Airbus missed the boat when they failed to take the A310 AEW&C (partnered with Raytheon and ELTA) beyond a brochure proposal; GlobalEye only flew earlier in the year and has half the number of mission consoles and a much smaller crew rest area than the GlobalEye:


Just sign up and get on with it!

Probably more to do with most of the mission modes not being available to non 5 Eyes customers that are to the Aussies and Brits. Plus, the Aussies have been developing system integration for ages now. Knowledge we may be able to share.

If I had to do 15+ hour missions, I know what footprint I would want to do it in. And it's not the Saab.

​​​​​​

Buy if off the forecourt !
 

Quite early in the Sentry's service, the aircraft water tank was deemed unfit for consumption due to a build up of bugs, and replacing it would have been expensive. The aircraft coffee brewer was also deemed unsuitable as it leaked over the electrics and was removed early on in the aircraft's career. The result is that for many years the crews have relied upon bottled water which was heated up in a plug in container which takes ages to bring up to temperature (first on board - fill up the hot-jugs and switch on). Far superior was the Shackleton's water boiler, filled by pump from a large jerry can (not withstanding the day that the boiler once broke on the start-up for an air display and it wouldn't turn off. Cue to the sight of a Shackleton taxying out, disgorging clouds of steam through the beam window with one of the mission crew pumping away to ensure that the boiler did not run dry).

Eight Sqn "Shackleton" used to possess a very large "clockwork" key which was often used at air displays to fit on top of the sparkplug like Orange Harvest antenna and before start, the groundcrew would climb onto the roof and wind it up!

One could argue the Airseeker program was similar.

I was referring to a commercial lease arrangement, not a government to government lend-lease arrangement.

On a RNoAF Sea King they had a similar water boiler to that fitted to Nimrod and Shackleton with two extra features. The water level had a barber's pole sight glass and a simmer function.

On bugs in the water tank, that was the reason Shacks had jerry cans and a hand pump. After I asked why they didn't clean the tanks - they did. I don't recall any issues on the Nimrod.

There's little doubt the sensor is very good. However, it is not a 360 degree sensor and has a 30 degree blind spot fore and aft. So if you need 360 degree coverage, this sensor is not for you.

First, when do you actually need 360-degree coverage? In the real world, in land-based defensive ops, you usually have a pretty good idea where the activity you want to monitor is, and you position your racetrack accordingly. Second, if you have a constantly rotating radar and you are protecting/looking over a border, half the time it's pointed in the wrong direction; and if you're tracking specific targets you have limited dwell time once every ten seconds.

That being said, this very good system is not interoperable with US or NATO equipment, so for a nation like the UAE that does not need to interoperate with other forces its a great choice. For forces that need to interoperate with the US and/or NATO, not so much.

What makes it "not interoperable"? That's a matter of the comms equipment on board. And a NATO nation already uses EriEye, and it's news to me that the UAE does not need to interoperate with the US.

The biggest procurement decision for the P8: Toaster - two or four slots?

The UK is a signatory to the NATO AEW&C Force. The current Sentries are not tasked by the UK but by NATO. The requirement is for there to be "seemless" capabilities between the NATO E-3A and the RAF's E-3D to make this tasking straight forward. Any downgrade in operational capability on either side would upset this agreement.

Why not convert a few of the spare Voyagers? What could possibly go wrong?

Wasn't there a $50,000 coffee pot in the B-52, because it had to withstand a nuclear magnetic pulse??