We have all heard how well Sentinel is alleged to have performed in Ellamy but as to any evidence of this? Remember a recent inadvertent release to the Danish media of a classified report on NATO Ops over Libya was highly critical of Int operations by all partners once the US pulled the Int plug.
The well made jet as currently configured is severely weight restricted, the crews all have to be below a certain weight and last time I looked even the doors to the mission equipment racks had been removed to save weight. The Raytheon sensor is the problem (and to some extent Raytheon keeping their system all to themselves). Nice jet, outdated concept of ops and a very well spun story I think.
So let get this straight Rockall…because a report was released (one of several actually) that NATO allies as a whole struggled to deliver certain capabilities after the US pulled its support the conclusion must be the R.1 Sentinel underperformed?! … just my opinion here but “What utter rot”! By in large the criticism was levelled due to lack of refuelling capability or the ability to sustain high intensity operations. The UK offered a unique capability within European NATO members to the campaign in the form of R.1 Sentinel and the type was in high demand by the operational commander.
As for the Weight issue got anything to back up your claims? Whilst it is open knowledge that the type has suffered range and endurance wise due to its lack of probe and shaving every ounce of weight has been a priority it still performed 10+ hour sorties in that campaign with a new crew taking over shortly after it landed to refuel. That shows a high level of sustainability in general. They have also upgraded the Satcom and discretely removed some of the ground station data-link kit saving more weight recently.
Considering the radar and associated systems are highly classified it is difficult to comment about its overall performance beyond the fact that the people running the campaign asked for its services as much as possible and those independent of the MOD and RAF have been highly complimentary of what the type brought to the table.
Care to explain how it is an outdated concept when it appears to be in high demand as an ISTAR platform. The only spinning I have seen so far is from you.
Considering you throw terms like “Crab” and “PONGO” around I fear you are yet another person more interested in the childish labels of inter-service rivalry then the realities of the current defence budget. As I have said in the past as far as I am concerned the services are going to have to learn to get on with each other without looking at how they can stab each other in the back to poach budget they feel should be gifted to their service. I am certainly sick of people saying service A can never sort themselves out to work with service B. Tough the defence budget and the treasury that controls it says otherwise, the services have to learn to work together to protect the budget as a whole or the treasury will salami slice them to death! The cold hard reality is post 2015 the RAF run seedcorn initiative is probably not enough to relaunch a fixed wing MPA ASW capability. The Fleet Air Arm on the other hand still maintain a training stream for helicopter ASW and will be needed if we want to relaunch a capability. On the otherhand the the Royal NAvy need to accept that the experience being saved by project seedcorn will be highly useful pulling that capability back….the solution will be purple if they have any sense. I don’t care about what colour uniform won’t work at another base because it is owned by a different colour uniform…they can grow up or shove off as far as I am concerned!
And before you say “Jonesy” started it with the “Crab” stuff whilst I highly respect his opinions and his loyalties it really pains me to see him lower himself to such childish terms.
Sign In
