A Sentry R1 surveillance aircraft has completed the types final operational sortie before the fleet is sold off.
RAF Waddington posted news that an aircraft had returned from the types final operational sortie.
The aircraft, ZJ694, was over the Baltic Sea near Russia earlier today.
What does Sentinel do?
The aircraft, described on the Royal Air Force website as “the most advanced long-range, airborne-surveillance system of its kind in the world”, provides long-range, wide-area battlefield surveillance, delivering intelligence and target tracking information to British forces.
The aircraft has been operationally deployed in support of operations in Afghanistan, Libya and Mali, and was recently deployed in support of British and Coalition operations in Iraq and Syria as well as surveillance operations near the Russian border.
Why is it being sold off?
The aircraft is being sold off, it is claimed, due to obsolescence.
Jeremy Quin, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, last year stated that Sentinel was introduced in 2008 in the knowledge that a significant equipment upgrade would be required in the mid 2010s.
“The Sentinel R1 has been operationally deployed in support of a number of operations. Some operations are considered to be both conventional and counter-insurgency; for example operations in Afghanistan (Op HERRICK) and Iraq (Op SHADER). It has also been deployed on operations in Libya (Op ELLAMY), Nigeria (Op TURUS) and Mali (Op NEWCOMBE), all considered conventional operations.
Sentinel was introduced in 2008 in the knowledge that a significant equipment upgrade would be required in the mid 2010’s. The Defence Review in 2010 cancelled this expected upgrade bringing forward the likely out of service date. The SDSR 2015 determined that Sentinel should be retained for a further period and set a new out of service date of March 2021. While some work was conducted on the on-board equipment this fell well short of a full system upgrade.
I asked a defence insider about the value in scrapping Sentinel, he told me:
“The decision was taken 10 years ago to switch it off so no support [for the fleet] has been in place since then, and the fleet has been run on a shoestring. As such, you’ve got a fleet of jets that are totally unfit for conversion, without a key role and where other ways of doing it exist.”
We recently reported that Sentinel was to be sold off. The Ministry of Defence advise however that the aircraft being sold off are “not for reuse”. You can read more on that by going to the article below.
The Ministry of Defence advise that the aircraft being sold off are “not for reuse”.
This pains me. The enabling assets like this in the ISTAR field are such multipliers!
“As such, you’ve got a fleet of jets that are totally unfit for conversion, without a key role and where other ways of doing it exist.”
Without a key role? Like loitering near Russia on a weekly basis?
What other ways? Small satellites? Drones? Tethered Balloons?
Where are these assets?
Reminds me of the ministers replying to the Nimord MPA fiasco to the effect that other assets existed for MPA ( Hercs??? ) implying use of the MK1 eyeball!
We are very good at scrapping key enablers unfortunately
Aye min , totally agree I can’t help but feel there is a definite short sightedness amongst some in the MOD and Whitehall . I seriously hope they have something planned to replicate the sentinels attributes.
?????????
They will probably tout the 9 x P-8’s and Protector with its tiny Lynx SAR/GMTI
Plus Rivet Joint presumably.
More likely to be Protector with Seaspray 7500E V2 that’s currently being integrated onto the Protector platform. The 7500E V2 claims both land and sea surveillance capabilities. It wouldn’t be the first time we’ve used what is usually thought of as a marine radar surveillance system over land, with Sea King ASaC7 used to effect in Afghanistan, where beach-front properties are thin on the ground.
I wonder if the U.S. has told the Brit’s they can purchase the Airborne Aerial Sensor for their P-8s? It’s far more advanced than what the Sentinel carries.
its been looked @ but makes the E 7s pointless. and that order has been placed.
Does it? I was under the impression they are completely different roles. P8 with AAS for ground surveillance and E7s for AEW.
Yeah, all that huge fleet of 9 aircraft.
Yep P8s can cover there work and the E7s will provide a replacement for 2 airframes in the future. The Sentinal fleet is too small to offer value for money and need a large upgrade. other Istar assets can cover the sentinels. 2nd hand airframes when converted, and cannot link up with the Modern systems on the F35bs and QE class carriers. if it works the RAF will drag it to the scrap heap. these aircraft are not fit to fly and the equipment is not up to scratch anymore.
To be honest since they not invested in updating the fleet the better and more cost effective option now would be to buy a new UAV like Global Hawk / Triton. Since NATO has a Global Hawk fleet coming online and the UK mission is more littoral, they probably need to focus on a maritime UAV to work with the P-8s
UK and USA will pull back from Nato untill there spending is in line with other states….
Hi Daniele. You’re assuming conducting operations near Russia with these assets has value. The question is do they really, or are we just using assets because we have them, per the quoted comment “without a key role”?
In a hot war we could never use these assets anywhere near an adversary with a high altitude SAM capability, and there are plenty of countries that have that capability. We can use our 8x Shadow R1, 9x Defenders and imminent Protector UAV fleets for ISTAR against insurgencies, where the worst SAM is likely to be a MANPAD with a circa 15,000 feet ceiling.
Longer term, for peer battlefield ops, every sensor at ground level on up will contribute to the picture. At the highest altitude will be LEO satellites. Its worth looking at the current early stages of the SpaceX Starlink network coverage to give a sense/proxy of how pervasive LEO satellite networks are going to be for surveillance purposes. Currently less than a tenth of the total satellites planned have been deployed to achieve this coverage.
https://satellitemap.space/
Mate. You’ve explained all that before at length., which is appreciated. But I’m still not happy with it!?
I think if we still had 10k plus troops in Afghan or some other hot sandy location, the capability would have been kept on. It is a shame to see these go, but they are a single role aircraft, that would require costly upgrades, and can only really be used when we have complete air superiority of an area of interest. I’m sure the loss of capability will be missed in the short term. But longer term, our future is with P8, E7, Protector and Rivet Joint, plus satellite capability and F35 will also bring considerable ISTAR capability. All these add up to a considerable Increase in capability across the board compared to what we have had over the last 15 years. Lovely looking aircraft though, And always a shame to see these go. Hopefully 5sqn will be given a new role.
Something to do with this maybe?
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/02/15/natos-new-fleet-of-surveillance-drones-is-deemed-mission-ready/
The Main issue is there 10 years passed a update, and imagine the issue taking your 20 year old computer and asking PC WORLD to update it. Cheaper to buy new airframe. based on a 737 airframe.
Exactly my thoughts Daniele. If it’s just come back from operational deployment, it must have an operational role. Most advanced in the world and yet too obsolete to allow for upgrade? Who are they trying to kid with this usual government double-speak? Cameron’s 2010 SDSR strikes again! In theory this role could be performed by large sophisticated RPAS, but where’s that programme? Just another capability (very long) holiday because of a decision made in 2010.
The Main issue is there 10 years passed a update, and imagine the issue taking your 20 year old computer and asking PC WORLD to update it. Cheaper to buy new airframe. based on a 737 airframe.
BAEs had a issue with Nimrod in that it didnt work, and needed more money to make it work. then entered into a heated conversation with the RAF and UKGovs. and were told to make it work. @ some point in the pissing contest, BAEs resindered the extra flying hour’s extensions on the Harrier Fleet. thus grounding most UK Harriers very quickly. as it removed manufacturer’s support in this bitter act UKGovs cancelled and scrapped the Nimrods as it was the last Aircraft under sole BAEs to prevent this ever happening again. only flyable UK Built Harriers are a few SHAR2s and 1 T from the Ground Handling school which have airframe hours, they is currently one flying in the USA….
Nonsense.
The idea BAE pulled the plug on Harrier, from whose on service support it made a lot of money, in some silly contest over Nimrod, is absurd. The airframe issues on Harrier were long extant but would have cost money to resolve (money the US soent on theirs as it spent on classic Hornets).
Nimrod was cancelled because it didnt fly/work, and there was no obvious route as to how to get it there, or when.
Harrier was binned because MoD needed to swing an axe and it didnt have the fleet size, airframe hours or “must have” strategic capabilities (Storm Shadow, Raptor) that Tonka had.
Hmm, large UAVs? Reconditioned Fairy Swordfish? You are so right, someone is pennywise and pound foolish.
Article says they are to be sold – does anyone know who to? I can’t imagine many countries with a need for these – Israel? Saudi? Australia?
I read somewhere, probably here that the airframe is only being sold for spare parts and scrap. The radar will be removed before it is sold. Which is such a waste. I would imagine the Saudis would happily purchase them.
Will one of Hancock’s friends get a good deal on them?
bet youre waiting with youre arm out for one of Hancocks mates and his vaccine.
scrapped no ISTAR Systems will be left
I despair!
Do we really think our key allies care how many light infantry battalions we have sitting around of whether we’re bringing this many fast-jets or that many armoured vehicles into service vs key enablers like Sentinel which very few other nations can bring to the party!
We never learn….
I agree. Sentinel can surely operate from places Rivet joint can’t get to due to the size of the base? Especially given that the range of the Sentinel is almost 2200 miles more than Rivet Joint and given we have no way to air to air refuel rivet joint due to the stupid refuelling contract!
The Main issue is there 10 years passed a update, and imagine the issue taking your 20 year old computer and asking PC WORLD to update it. Cheaper to buy new airframe. based on a 737 airframe.
Then you have to Ask NATO WHY IT CANNOT DO THIS, why does the UK have to provide assets to cover what over countries cannot. defend out islands,
Guy said there’s other ways of doing things. Will have to take him at his word and/or wait for the Review.
Yeah! Get your allies to do it for you and pay through the nose.
Always been an odd bird, suffered from being a dead end design and procurement wise and the “insider” view effectively says they are fkd.
Having a capability requires continual investment in it, for such an orphan fleet that would be a disproportionate cost.
One hopes the UK has learnt.
Note the NATO AGS declared operating capability or something the other week. That might answer some questions as to the value of this.
That’s precisely the point ….. The fleet require a complete update to counter obsolescence, it was a shortsighted solution in the first place..
We would have been better buying JStar and operating them alongside the US in the same way as our RC135’s.
Parallel upgrade path with Uncle Sam paying the development costs…..
Sounds logical but maybe not – we didnt do any upgrades with our E3s to the point they are being disposed of for a less capable and expensive replacement because they are now almost impossible to upgrade, not to mention in poor condition.
Of course when we bought them we couldnt just buy what the US had, we had to “anglicise it” and take it away from the standard of US/NATO ones which is why the above happened…
What we could have done was an A320 variant, in parallel to an MPA variant and shared the costs and sold them across Europe and the world. Instead we shoved it into a BizJet which fundamentally was too small/payload limited and had zero scope for update, plus was so bespoke no-one else wanted it.
Less capable replacement, please explain?
Morning Rogbob, I largely agree, but a European solution would never have been cheaper.
An A320 based solution for both GTR and Maritime patrol sounds reasonable and a good platform.
However, a duel track development wouldn’t have been possible in the time frame and an GTR radar aircraft would still have ended up as a bespoke solution across no more than 9 aircraft (France probably ordering less), coupled with the difficulty of the usual workshare bun fighting and political squabbling delays.
Cheaper? Hard to tell, a lot of money went into (C)ASTOR from the early 90s and Sentinel took a lot to get it in service. Hence repeated cuts to its ground side.
Hard to see why putting the radar in an A320 would be more expensive than what was done other than the trivial difference in airframe costs – integration ones being overhwelming there and as we know, a larger platfrom is just easier to do that in.
Fleet size, its all “what if” speculation of course but the US was looking at a next gen JSTARS (ended up with MC2 or whatever it was which was binned) and of course only got P8 going later. With an A320 line in the US and a US integrator (as was case with Nimrod ie Lockheed) then a US A320 MPA might have been possible (politics and US build/offset). A320/1 being much preferable as the basis of special mission ac than the B737NG platform due to inherant performance/size and FCS.
NATO AGS looked at A320. But its all very iffy. Although feels to me a lot more potential than what happened.
As for E3 vs E7, ignore the radar and tech and shiney things and think workstations. That is your real capability and limiting capacity. But its a by the by really given E3 has to stop and there are no alternatives.
These ‘what if’ situations are always very interesting, so many variables….
Pushing forward, the only really affordable replacement for Sentinel is the GTR podded system for our P8’s, hopefully with a top up of the fleet to 12.
I can’t imagine it’s as capable as the Sentinel, but as part of the solution, it should fill the gap.
One thing’s for sure, Sentinel is on its last gasp anyway, systems obsolescence is dictating withdrawal, I would have been happier with the replacement at the very least ordered though!
Ho hum, mind the gap gentlemen!
E3 is pretty hard work to keep going.
The older (UK) version required a lot of manual input.
the E7 will automate the workflows. Think changes in ATC procedures yes slips of paper are still there for emergencies but…….
So I wouldn’t count the chairs and equate that to capability.
AIUI the capability is still significantly less in the E7. Given the alternative is “nothing” the it’s probably good enough.
UKGovs doesn’t Like Airbus products. Voyager was a success but it was a protected contract. Airbus stop building planes faster than they build them. left with an obsolete airframe needing specialist works. Boeing will build you a B17 wing spar. 737 are ageless.
What? Sorry but that’s nonsense.
Voyager is a massive success as a platform (less said about PFI and associated issues the better) as everyone else has found with MRTTs. The B767 is only in USAF service due to pork barrel and politics, a poor technical choice which is why the competition had to be re-run on daftly biased lines for it to win.
Ask B717 usesr what they think about Boeing support…
A300/310 and 340s are still very well supported, ask a freight operator!
B737 are not timeless but timed out, as the chaos with the MAX shows and how the A321 is destroying sales of them.
JSTAR is knackered to most of the fleet is grounded. Its the airframe and engine that are the problem.
E-3s apparently not much better https://www.airforcemag.com/pacaf-boss-calls-for-e-7s-to-replace-aging-e-3-awacs/
When I was in the RAF a mate of mine who was involved with the project ( he was an air engineer ironically) said from the start the project was fighting the been counters. The first to go was AAR capability, okay you can live with that but heres the crux some project dude wanted the toilet system removed. With an aircraft of that design and you keep messing taking stuff out and putting stuff back in when the aircraft are being built such things as c&g become a constant head ache. Also what are you going to do if you want a number 2? I never got an answer to that.
The thing is technology has moved on so fast that it is almost redundant when it comes into service. Let’s hope an equivalent replacement whatever it is comes to light.
I think all those things actually went because of the (growing) payload weight and the limitations of the airframe.
Hence why the comment upthread on Sentinel having 2000 more mile range than RJ is so wrong, it was a GX at the start, it is not one now.
I think the NATO AGS has in effect replaced it.
I remember when the old PR Canberras went – a small number with a unique capability – the oblique yet very detailed camera shots. We used them at the beginning of the Afghan conflict I think and they were retired almost the following day after their last sortie. That kicked up a real fuss but we replaced the capability on the Tornado GR4 – RAPTOR pod. I think the Canberras were soon forgotten. If we can buy a small number of extra P8s we should and plan to replicate the capability on that whilst being able to surge the MR need when we need to. I hope it works out that way.
There goes another capability gone for the UK
UK has other ISTAR assets to take up the slack, its a big like switching from wet film to digital. sents are creaking at the joins.
All rather odd TBH.
I don’t know if anyone noticed that Bombardier file distribution system had been hacked and the radar CAD distributed online – article in The Register – I’ll try and post a link but that usually results in a very delayed post.
https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/24/seaspray_radar_ransomware/
And also
https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/23/bombardier_clop_ransomware_leaks/
This is what I love about the British Government, happy to sell anything and everything in which to fund their John Lewis store card. F-ing traitors the lot of them
I’ve been following it in the Baltic area these last couple of weeks and I find it difficult to comprehend it is now obsolete. Our Rivet Joint has been there as well so is it to take over? It will presumably be more expensive to operate in the same way by some magnitude.
Different role. RC135 more of an ELINT / SIGINT bird not ground surveillance.
It’s a shame, but if they are old airframes that need a whole lot of investment to keep them airworthy, then the decision has to be made is that money better invested in something new. As one priminister said, their is no magic money tree and it’s a hard truth, you can only spend your money once and only to the limit the voting public are willing to accept and we don’t vote for governments that raise taxis…..
So crazy. Boris must be taking advice from Merkel these days. Ugh
Kit originally bought as a stop-gap measure that has provided good service but is now obsolete. Sensible decision.
Trying to upgrade them and keep them going would probably end up like another Nimrod MRA4 style debacle.
I was just thinking the same….spooky LOL.
Me too. I don’t see the point of scarce throwing time, effort and money into something that’s both obsolete and worn out. Especially when the replacement capability seems to be already lined up. A responsible decision, despite my habitual reluctance to seeing anything cut.
What is the replacement?
UAV’s Poseidon?
its is so true, but people just see a cut in service. best way to describe these Aircraft is they are a 20 year old computer and you take it to PC World to get a new hard drive….. cheaper and better to buy a laptop. MOD drives everything into the ground we dont have Show ponies or Port Princess or Sunny weather cars….
If the tech is no longer front line capable, then why can’t we use them in areas of lower threat. Falklands and the Caribbean Seas come to mind, even useful in UN operations such as Mali. These aircraft are useful in terrain mapping and I think were given a maritime capability in 2015. It would leave the few E-7s and P-8s to carryout front line tasks. I am trying to understand how in 12 years the systems have become so out of date. I am sorry to see these useful platforms go.
It not the airframe, engines etc, but the radar and its mission control system. The issue lies with the components used to make the system. These components, circuit boards etc were made in the early 90’s, technology has moved on. Raytheon who manufacture the synthetic aperture radar/moving target indicator radar (SAR/MTI) Sentinel Dual Mode Radar (SDMR) stopped producing parts from around 2010. They could spin up reproducing parts but it will be at great cost. At the time it was introduced this radar was cutting edge. However, we can now do the same synthetic image production using smaller signal processing modules and mission systems. Leonardo’s Osprey radar is a very good example of what is available currently off the shelf, that has the same capabilities as the Sentinel’s SDMR.
What I don’t get is what has changed in the targets it’s tracking. Ground warfare hasn’t really advanced much in the last 60 years and if it could track ground objects 15 years ago, why can’t it do it now? Yes tech to track stuff has improved and that would be nice to have, but the capaibltiy they brought 15 years ago hasn’t deteriorated. It’s not like new forms of ground stealth has been invented.
Advancrments in SAMs hasn’t really changed either. This type of plane would be easy picking 30 years ago and that hasn’t really changed.
The radar is still very good at the job it does, so in that respect nothing has changed. What has significantly changed is the cost of maintenance of the radar and its backend system. This is the real driver why the aircraft are being”scrapped”!
its a 20 year old design needed a system upgrade 10 years ago which was cancelled. how old is your computer ????
Not related, but in other news it has been officially announced the the RAF are looking at replacing Puma – finally!
UK reveals Puma replacement plan (janes.com)
They are keeping tight lipped about the requirement specifications, but they have only a few options if they want to buy off the shelf, or wait and see who wins the US Army’s future medium lift program. However, there is also the joint collaboration between Airbus and Leonardo which will be looking at a future NH90, EW101, Cougar replacement.
Noticed that, it could be time for the RAF and RN to look at the same helicopter to replace Puma and Merlin as I think Merlin is planned to be replaced 2029-2030. I really do think that the Army Air Corp should have a say in what type of transport helicopter they need or want as it is troops that will be moved around the battlefield.
The Army does have a say. All they want is a rotary truck to get them from a to b and back. The argument is who ha the Fleet on their inventory.
Likewise saw that post. Unfortunately I don’t think that you can getting a single type to replace both Puma and Merlin – while they may perform some of the same roles, the Merlin has some other roles, hence they are different sizes. Also the OSD are wide apart, Puma by 25, Merlin currently v2030, but widely expected to be pushed right to 2035ish.
They are cutting it fine for a Puma replacement, so I would guess that it’s coming of the shelf, something like NH90 or AW149 perhaps.
I think it’s likely the Merlin replacement will come from the US FHL programme or some other collaboration yet to be produced.
Only my thoughts on this.
As Mark says below, the Army through Joint Helicopter Command, do have a say. This is the reason why we aren’t a whole Chinook only force. As much as the Chinook is the best battlefield support helicopter, its one major failing is its size. This is quite a problem if you want to land on a building roof, or in a small wooded clearing etc. Puma is good for this role, even though the airframe is well past its sell by date. On paper, the NH90 would have been a good replacement, as it has about the same footprint, yet has two side cabin doors along with a rear ramp. It is also fully marinised. Whereas, the top heaviness of the Puma, means it is restricted to only operating from ships at really mild sea states. However, NH90 has had loads of problems and seen the fleet globally grounded for a year, do we really want to buy a dog?
As far as cheap and cheerful goes the AW149 or even the latest version of Blackhawk will be more than adequate. But is this really an advancement over Puma 2? No, not really, except both can operate from ships. In some respects I can see the RAF going down this route, as it will be a lot cheaper than going with either of the Defiant or Valor offerings, that will win the US Army’s future medium lift (FML) requirement. The reason for this is that the RAF have recommitted to Chinook for the foreseeable future, to 2040 at least. Which means the US Army’s future heavy lift (FHL) program is off the cards for now. One of the FHL requirements was to match the 250kn cruise speed of the FML requirement. It is aerodynamically impossible for a Chinook to attain these speeds, so why would we need a faster medium lift helicopter, for the moment? Either of the Defiant or Valor would be a gold plated solution, with the Valor being a better offering for the Navy due to its range advantage. The Defiant would be the closest to the Puma 2, as it can land in tighter spaces.
Blackhawk. Could have gone for that instead of Wildcat too.
It works.
Spot on Daniele, Blackhawk/Seahawk would have been an excellent solution for all three services and saved a ‘huge’ amount of money by buying a proven off the shelf solution.
Although integration of RN weapons onto Seahawk would have cost additional money, this would be offset by money saved with Blackhawk adoption by the RAF.
Although Wildcat is clearly excellent for the Navy, no arguments from me there, it’s a very poor choice for the Army, with very limited ability in its utility roll.
With regards to scouting, we could have bought additional AH64E’s for a bargain price, after all, the Army Wildcat has an austere equipment fit.
Quite how it’s supposed to scout for its AH64E stable mates, who bristle with sensors, eludes me.
Does it fly about until it gets shot at using its flir turret and MK1 eyeballs, or fly so low it can’t detect anything…..
Still, it kept an Italian company in the game and satisfied DTI requirements, so I guess that’s what matters??
Tail wags the dog again……
Jobs for the boys mate.
Like you, I exclude the RN Wildcat.
Can’t disagree with you, but it depends on timescales surely I would imagine. Is the US option going to be available before Puma OSD? If not the options decrease, buy off the shelf-likely, or gap capability-unlkely in my opinion.
It will be interesting to see what the AAC do for the Gazelle replacement which has a OSD ofv2023/4 I believe, cutting it even finer!
I cant see the US option being available until after 2030 and it would probably cost more than double an AW149. Just buy off the shelf until the tilt rotar options are proven and more affordable.
Please god, an off the shelf solution, let’s not get involved in a euro fight for Puma replacement.
Fixed price contract on an existing and proven type, with Army given the type choice…. Really not rocket science, just watch them Fu*k it up though!
This is god. I try to keep out of these disputes and leave it to the MOD. But I keep getting complaints about that…
Couldn’t agree more, just buy what’s needed, will last for some 15/20yrs. That buys time so we can then see what’s about. We should have taken this route instead of the Puma upgrade! I know, hindsight, absolutely wonderful!!.
I heard that AIRBUS is offering the H175 as a potential replacement
What ever route we go down, the helo needs to be maritime deployable, I still think a follow up order for Merlin HC4 to fill the RAF medium support requirements.
A total fleet of 50 of a single type is far more flexible than two fleets of 25, both needing an entirely seperate support network.
Who cares what squadron badge is on them, RAF/ FAA, what does it matter, we need the greatest possible flexibility from any new purchasing.
It brings increased maritime lift when needed and supports British jobs.
Is Merlin still in production? I agree consolidate on types we have but Merlin needs investment really.
But anything would preferable to a Leonardo or Airbus warmed over civvy helo.
If ops have taught us anything, it needs to be robust and have ample space and capacity for all the armour, radios and defensive aids that Ops require.
I suspect the long rumoured MH47 and additional CH47F purchase with Puma replacement rolled into that for better or worse.
We now have RAF Space command the intention is to have low earth orbit satellites that can do the same job and stay up forever until shot down. Before anyone says they can’t see through cloud I’m sorry but they can.
So what happened to Boris promise to stop hollowing out the armed forces and invest in forces suitable for so called global Britain, I hope the rumors’ are just media hype ,but as one retired soviet general said , the UK has the best light infantry in the world and which he considered more a threat than nukes.
Best to take BJ’s promises with a larger pinch of salt.
…or large even
Forced obsolescence through insufficient funding for entirely predictable maintenance costs, that is all. The ‘obsolete’ excuse has joined that other Gov/MOD’ subterfuge ‘get rid of equipment now and we’ll replace with like for like later- honest’.
Strange this ‘obsole……’ stuff gets utilised right up to the last minute, rather than having been mothballed for some time. Harriers? – still OK for the USA, Spain & Italy a decade after UK states they’re u/s, and not replaced by them until a valid modern equivalent is introduced.
It’s to do with systems obsolescence Gavin, many of the bespoke systems used in Sentinel are unavailable and out of production, so would require a major project to integrate new systems into the aircraft …
The net result would be extremely expensive and guess what, 10 year from now we would be in the same boat again.
We have to buy off the shelf systems to avoid this sort of very expensive gaff from happening again.
OK, John, I’ll buy that explanation in this instance, cheers. Still seems that being strapped for cash does not stop us making ostensibly poor front end & back end investment decisions. Wonder if the conundrum revolves around trying to maintain a national capability, a worthy aim, whilst not being able to fund sufficient units to achieve cost effectivness.
Wonder if next month’s Review will in any way address the issue for the long term (or not so long if international relations continue their downward path – nothing like a war to solve the numbers issue!)
In the days when we had bespoke systems a whole army of people was directly employed to support each of them.
That was fine in the days when people would work in an badly heated Nissan with a flickering fluorescent tube and a pittance for a salary on the promise of a decent pension and a career. But that doesn’t work now.
The problem with the old model was that the team were doing make work and homers most of the time IRL they were **encouraged** to do homers. I’m not knocking what was done: it was very elegant and very clever for its time.
That being said a lot of it was very basic and the real secret was that there was nothing very secret in some of the cabinets! They just did a very good job. He that doth have a secret to keep etc!!
Where this thread is loosing its way is that all of the processing is moving into the software digital server/pc domain and so using bespoke console and brute muscle processing iron is a thing of the past. Stuff that was developed in the late 2000’s would run on Sun Sparc or SGI UNIX boxes, most likely, and these were heavy and power hungry by today’s standards.
Having spent a decade of my life getting bespoke backend hardware code talking to UNIX boxes I can well understand how migrating this might not be a simple proposition and be another well rehearsed dead end. As DaveyB says above the issue is also simply getting bits for old systems that are no longer in manufacture is hard and expensive. Making high frequency circuit boards is an art form and you can’t just etch a few and knock them up: even where components are mounted on the surface and tracks will have been carefully tuned.
Sad, but let’s move onto P8, E7 and other goodies we may never know about. Drones, in large fleets, with podded surveillance are the way forward for surveillance as converted airlines are just too vulnerable anywhere semi-hot (war like).
Absolutely, the very issue in a nutshell.
I have somewhat of an overview of such things, not the detailed knowledge you obviously have but can certainly see the utter folly of such bespoke systems.
They are massively expensive and very life limited by their very nature…
The RC135 (and P8) procurement were both a massive step in the right direction, let uncle Sam spend the huge sums of money on development, he’s just happy to have a friend ready and able to share the workload.
If we try and develop such systems domestically, we end up flat broke, with no money to spend on the front line….
Unfortunately we have a history of making poor decisions…..
I meant to say, not in all circumstances, aviation wise, Team Tempest might just be a game changer here……
I must admit not realising how small the RAF was until I recently checked it. To me, of greater concern, is the proposal to lop another 10,000 of the army’s strength bringing it down to just 60,000! What sort of army is that? Hardly a wonder that the USA doubts the British will to continue to participate in world events. I just cannot understand how other similar sized countries seem to have much bigger armed forces for the money!
Same old story, we acquire an asset then fail to update and maintain it, choosing instead to scrap it without a replacement in sight. I note on the BBC article it states the work of these aircraft will be undertaken by the P8 Posiedon and forthcoming Protector. Janes Defence magazine also says they could be sold for re-use instead of scrapping?? Perhaps to help fund additional P8s with pods fitted?
These aircraft have been very heavily modified Paul, they won’t fly again, probably be parted out and scrapped, one for Cosford or Hendon perhaps???
I understood the aircraft are to be dismantled. As I stated, it is Janes who suggested possible sale for re-use, presumably in their current type of role, but I can’t see that happening.
This makes no sense at all.
Stand by troops! This is peanuts comapred to the destruction about to be wrought on our capability in the very close and up and coming Integrated defence review! Be prepared to see cuts cuts cuts, covered as “capability change” “new way of warfare” blah blah blah. Stnad by to lose any and most kinetic effect, combat effectiveness and our already limited ability to sustain losses in a hostile environ.
In the news today they are talking of getting rid of 14 Hercules transport planes, the last of them in the RAF, dispensing with more fighter aircraft, tanks and armoured vehicles in addition to getting rid of thousands of troops. What a joke! This will only amuse the pacifists and enemies.
Well these aircraft seem to have had a fairly substantial “key role” up until very recently. I’d be interested to know what the other ways are of completely fulfilling this particular role using one platform.
Yet another decision to regret further down the line I suspect.
Didn’t the RAF also retire the Super King Air aircraft that had some ISTAR functions?