In the previous post I suggested that UAV’s are not yet the panacea that many think they are. Situational awareness, operation in adverse weather and running costs in many situations favour manned platforms. In the post on SIGINT I suggested the RAF obtain half a dozen King Air 350ER based SIGINT/COMMINT aircraft to supplement the 3 new(ish) Air Seeker aircraft.
Recognising the basic fact that manned platforms are inherently more versatile and in many ways more flexible than UAV’s the US have fielded a number manned platforms. The RAF has also followed suit with the Shadow R1 and leased of a small number of DA42’s. The Sentinel based ASTOR system uses the Bombardier Global Express airframe and Sea King ASaC Mk.7’s are also being operated to good effect. The Sea King is due out of service in 2016 and the SDSR announced that Sentinel would be withdrawn at the conclusion of operations in Afghanistan or when it is no longer needed, whichever is sooner.
In this post I am going to look at the options around manned ISTAR platforms, Nimrod will get its own post later on and the E3 will get a mention in that post as well.
Contents
Sentinel/ASTOR
Airborne Stand odd Radar (ASTOR) is a ground surveillance system designed to provide information about the deployment and movement of enemy forces. It uses MTI and SAR technology to obtain high resolution imagery of static features and to identify and track moving vehicles.
The programme originated during the mid 1980s when the Ministry of Defence (MoD) initiated the Corps Airborne Stand-Off Radar (CASTOR) programme, which was intended to provide medium- and high-altitude Moving Target Indicator (MTI)/Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) capabilities in support of 1(BR) Corps in Germany, tracking Russian panzers streaming through Germany on their way to the Channel.
The medium-altitude capability (CASTOR I) was to be provided by an army-operated system, the high-altitude (CASTOR C) by an RAF one. This programme got as far as a technology demonstration of the CASTOR I on a Britten-Norman Islander aircraft with a Ferranti radar before being abandoned because basically, it wasn’t good enough with a the usual dash of inter service politics and budgetary concerns, although the basic concept was well proven.
CASTOR
CASTOR
The Airborne Stand-Off Radar (ASTOR) programme incorporated some of the early work on CASTOR C and continued development work using a Canberra test bed aircraft with a modified Thorn EMI Searchwater radar. The system incorporated technologies developed for Raytheon’s HISAR radar, the SAR integrated with the Teledyne Ryan Global Hawk Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) and in the Lockheed Martin U2′s ASARS-2 improvement programme.
In 1989 a Technology Demonstration Programme worth £12M (at 1999/2000 prices) was agreed with the MOD Research Establishments who are now incorporated into QinetiQ. This feasibility work ran for two years and demonstrated that the concepts used in Airborne STand Off Radar were practicable. A move into Project Definition was approved in September 1993. Following open competition, two parallel contracts for an 18 month Project Definition programme were let in February 1995. After assessment of the Project Definition proposals it was considered that the optimum solution would be to invite the two consortia to submit Best and Final Offers for the Development, Production and In-Service Support. During the Best and Final Offer phase, a decision was taken to consider a third bid based upon the US Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) upgrade programme known as the Radar Technology Insertion Programme. As a result, various unsolicited revisions to the bids were received during the assessment process, further delaying the planned In Service Date by 14 months. Approval for the implementation phase was given after down selection in June 1999.
Raytheon System won the contract in 1999 and In Service was declared in late 2008.
ASTOR
To say it was a troubled project with a protracted development would be an understatement of Nimrod proportion!
The cost of the complete programme was just under £1.1billion with the 5 air vehicles production cost at £76m each and the 8 ground systems having a production cost of 15m each (MoD figures)
What did we get for £1.1billion plus the cost of CASTOR and all the time spent on development, especially interesting as we are about to chuck it into the round filing cabinet?
By all accounts it is a very effective system, able to track targets, create high resolution imagery and carry out pattern/scene analysis.
The Bombardier Global Express XRS, the donor aircraft for Sentinel, has prodigious range and endurance, relatively high speed and altitude. These qualities were deemed essential for the synthetic aperture radar but the radar, crew stations and associated processing equipment has proven to be heavy and this has impacted performance, reportedly leading to the decision not to fit an in flight refuelling probe, the money saved might have helped that decision along the way though, there is nothing like dressing up something that is too difficult to do as a cost saving, makes it easy to sell.
Why is it being withdrawn?
I think because it is single use, unable to grow, and with the combined radar capabilities on offer from F35, Scavenger and Watchkeeper it cannot justify its continuing existence. It was also due a mid life upgrade in 2015 which might have weighed heavily on the minds of those making the decision.
Is it a sensible decision?
Without knowing the performance, which of course only a few people will, it’s hard to make any judgements but perhaps it has simply been overtaken in performance terms by newer systems and the primary mission of tracking tank and truck movement in rear areas has been superseded by the need to detect IED’s, changes in terrain and ‘patterns of life’. The operational level (ISO container) and tactical (Pinzgauer) ground stations might also not be easily interoperable with other systems, especially Watchkeeper, although this is pure guesswork.
Sentinel also has some common systems and engines with MRA4 so one decision might have affected the other when looking at cost savings of withdrawing sub systems.
Further details of the system are here and here.
In light of the need to save money and possible duplication of capabilities I suppose it is understandable, not in any way desirable but understandable nevertheless.
Islander and Defender
The Army Air Corps and Royal Air Force operate a number of light turboprop aircraft. The oldest in service is the Britten Norman Islander and later Defenders. The AAC have operated Islanders for many years in support of UK operations and in recent times have also obtained a number of Defender 4000’s for light utility and liaison roles, reportedly for Iraq. There are also a number of ISTAR models in use but these tend to be well hidden and used on secret squirrel missions so maybe least said about these the better. Islanders and Defenders have also been used as trials aircraft for a number of years and are often seen with new bits of kit hanging off them.
Manchester police use one, as the video below
I have included them for completeness more than anything else but in whatever form, they continue to be a useful low cost option
DA42MPP
In 2009 it was announced that the MoD would be operating a couple of Diamond DA42MPP aircraft in the UK and overseas. The DA42 is a lightweight twin turboprop designed for aerial sensing which has a long endurance and extremely low capital/operating costs. Operated by civilian contractors on a lease they have reportedly performed extremely well although their small size and lack of crew facilities might make extended duration missions not particularly comfortable!
The DA42 has recently been demonstrated with bio fuel and the engines can use diesel, unlike the UAL engines of Watchkeeper. The latest variants have an innovative nose and fuselage modular payload pod for interchangeable sensors.
An interesting way to look at the DA42 is as a Hermes 450 yet much cheaper to buy (about a couple of million with all the toys) and operate, able to easily fly in civilian or non segregated air space, has a greater payload, longer endurance, better situational awareness, reduced bandwidth requirements and improved payload flexibility.
I should go and wash my mouth out, better not say anything against the unmanned is best argument.
Offering an interesting compromise is the Aeronautics Dominator II which takes the DA42 and turns it into a UAV
There is also an optionally manned version from Aurora Flight Sciences called the Centaur which apart from a small payload penalty offers the best of both worlds. For transits, training in civilian airspace and operations in relatively safe areas use a pilot, when things get risky, go unmanned. If we chose to use it as a manned asset in higher risk areas then we would need a defensive aids system so the cost goes up and payload goes down.
Shadow R1
Another UOR that is likely to disappear after Afghanistan is the Shadow R1. Based on the Hawker Beechcraft King Air 350 it is equipped with an electro optical sensor turret, possibly a SAR and full communications and DAS fit. With a crew of 5 the RAF now operates 4 or 5 of these extremely versatile aircraft.
The US has also been operating the Beechcraft C12 in a similar role for some time; perhaps they are experiencing the same bandwidth, cost and flexibility issues that are taking the shine off UAV’s and leading operators to look again at manned platforms, the MC-12W Liberty receiving a lot of attention, and funding.
A Few Suggestions – Pragmatism about Unmanned
I think we all know that unmanned systems are the long term future, as problems around situational awareness, obstacle avoidance and operation in non segregated airspace are resolved. In the short term though, the promise of low cost and uncomplicated operation has yet to be fulfilled, bandwidth issues continue to dog deployment and these are not easily resolved by simply switching more on. As artificial intelligence, on board data handling and autonomous operation technology improves these will also be resolved which leaves the rather thorny issue of ethics to be resolved.
In the mean time, we have matters to attend to and the demise of manned platforms will not be happening any time soon, plus of course all these technologies needed like artificial intelligence, sense/avoidance and on board image processing do not sound cheap.
So as we maintain a pragmatic view of UAV costs/capabilities and consistent with the general proposal to expand ISTAR capabilities this is a proposal to build on the Shadow R1 programme and not dispose after Afghanistan is over.
The capabilities of Shadow remain in the shadows (sorry about that) so it is difficult to speculate, does it have a SIGINT or SAR capability for example, who knows. If I had to guess at cost, I can’t see them coming in much beyond the £12-15m mark. A force of 10 would possibly come in below the price of a couple of F35’s so which offers more utility, I know which one my money would be on?
Let’s build the force so we can sustain at least a pair on enduring operations to compliment the proposed SIGINT version in the previous post. Another benefit of these systems is that they don’t look warlike which can have many advantages in a range of operations. If a UAV is operating in an area then it is pretty obvious that there is a military operation on the go, a twin engine business jet, which is what this would look like, will attract much less attention both on the ground and in the air.
The aircraft might be fitted with different payloads and for an even more off the wall suggestion, how about fitting them with a pair of stores rails and integrating the Hellfire or LMM. The Iraqi Combat Caravan’s have shown the effectiveness of a lightweight fixed wing aircraft for Hellfire launch.
If we sacrifice some performance it might even be possible to fit a gun, the BAe Remote Guardian that has been fitted to the V22 and is pretty self-contained. Now that would be an interesting proposition, a low cost but limited capability Apache!
Of course, the aircraft might not be able to carry one and it would decrease the payload for sensors and crew so this is only a tentative suggestion but it is food for thought.
Remote Guardian
Remote Guardian
A Few Suggestions – Recycling Sentinel
If we accept through gritted teeth that the decision to withdraw Sentinel is probably reasonable in light of future systems capabilities and financial realities we are left with the question of what to do with the 5 aircraft, ground system and training infrastructure.
Option 1 – bin the lot; the cheapest solution if we can squirm out of any support contracts or swap its value to other Raytheon provided equipment, like the Shadow R1 for example. If we are interested in business as usual and keeping our commitment to F35 then this is the most likely option but the Think Defence proposal for the RAF sees a reduction in fast jets in favour of ISTAR and other capability plus areas so I would discard this one. Even selling them will involve cost, stripping out the equipment and reverting them to a basic specification will cost.
Option 2 – VIP transport; The RAF 32 Squadron currently has an ageing fleet of BAe 125’s and 146’s. Reverting the 5 Sentinels to personnel transport would provide a step change in capability but would be a difficult political sell so worthy of consideration but fairly low down the list.
Option 3 – Maritime Patrol; given the capability gap we have imposed on ourselves with the cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4 programme we find ourselves unable to provide long range maritime patrol and search and rescue cover. Of course any conversion would not have an anti submarine capability but it would still provide a vital capability. The excellent Canadian American Strategic Review website has proposed something similar, a Global Express based patrol aircraft for their enormous patrol area. Despite the potential to partner with the French, which would inevitably use a Dassault Falcon, a maritime patrol conversion should be worthy of serious consideration. The basic aircraft has the range and endurance, we have them ‘in stock’ and a basic off the shelf sensor, mission system and communications fit would not be hugely expensive.
Option 4 – Manned ISTAR; we have been missing the Canberra PR9 since it was withdrawn some years ago, a high altitude, relatively high speed optical sensor capability, able to quickly respond and obtain very high quality time sensitive imagery in situations where we can’t hang about for ponderous UAV’s to get there. By getting rid of the heavy radar system and on board processing equipment we can significantly reduce the weight and power requirements and in the sensor fairing fit the same Goodrich DB110 sensor as the RAPTOR pod. The reduced weight will improve performance and allow for fitting an in flight refuelling probe and the sensor itself is relatively light weight. Leave the satellite uplink in place and the product becomes real time, carry an image analyst and that would be even better.
The Goodrich DB-110 sensor that forms the core of the RAPTOR pod, in service with the RAF, Poland and Egypt, is a derivative of the SYERS-2 system in the U2. As a measure of just how effective it is, the US are keeping their U2′s in service even though they have the Global Hawk. Goodrich and the RAF have also tested the RAPTOR pod on Predator UAV under the Joint UAV Experimentation Programme (JUEP) and subsequently, Goodrich proposed a compact reduced weight version, perhaps the size and weight proved troublesome for the Predator. The trials also integrated the sensors high definition imagery with the US Army’s Night Vision Laboratory change detection work station for IED detection.
The paper below describes some of the capabilities on offer so instead of using it as a tactical asset in the RAPTOR pod the same sensor could be allied to s a strategically capable aircraft as well.
The Bombardier web site claims a range of over 5,500 nautical miles for the XRS, how this compares with the performance of such a modified Sentinel is not known but I think it is a reasonable assumption that it is much better than an F35 or Tornado.
Option 5 – High Altitude Multi Purpose Platform; I will be looking at high altitude platforms (HAPs) in the next post but the Sentinel aircraft might form part of these plans.
## Other posts in this series ##
The Future of the RAF 01 – Introduction
The Future of the RAF 02 – Tasks and Trends
The Future of the RAF 03 – A Takeover Bid
The Future of the RAF 04 – Fast Jets
The Future of the RAF 05 – A Bargain Basement
The Future of the RAF 06 – A Reverse Takeover Bid
The Future of the RAF 07 – ISTAR #01
The Future of the RAF 08 – ISTAR #02 (DABINETT)
The Future of the RAF 09 – ISTAR #03 (SIGINT)
The Future of the RAF 10 – ISTAR #04 (Watchkeeper and Scavenger)
The Future of the RAF 11 – ISTAR #05 (Manned Airborne ISTAR)
The Future of the RAF 12 – ISTAR #06 (High Altitude Platforms)
The Future of the RAF 13 – ISTAR #07 (Maritime)
The Future of the RAF 14 – Strategic Transport and Refuelling
The Future of the RAF 15 – Tactical Transport
The Future of the RAF 16 – Vertical Lift #01 (Introduction)
The Future of the RAF 17 – Vertical Lift #02 (Basic Requirements)
The Future of the RAF 18 – Vertical Lift #03 (A Sensible Future)
The Future of the RAF 19 – Vertical Lift #04 (A Radical Future)
The Future of the RAF 20 – Building Regional Security
The Future of the RAF 21 – Summary
Hi TD,
V interesting post, will have to watch the videos with better time. Is the first one enhanced with “marketing” animation, showing real-time links to strike aircraft, in addition to up/ satellites and down/ ground stations links?
Of your Sentinel recycling proposals the lighter version with less drag, too, used for option 4 appeals. First of all, there is no comparable platform, with that type of range (as you stated). Second, the Pinzgauer is air-droppable (surely the electronics of the ground station, on the back of it, require more delicate handling). Should we ever have a rapid, air-deployed operation then from day one there would be real-time images available to its commander – on this “sovereign basis” which has often been repeated as a planning assumption.
Having a Shadow-like asset for forward-based and rugged field operation also appeals, but aren’t the numbers sufficient if the sustained battle group sized planning assumption is maintained. Their survivability in any ‘hot war’ situation can be doubted?
- BTW, you were going to clarify in this post on the different versions (flown by, or ordered by, our American cousins in more than one of their defence branches). Would be easier to comment once all the capability on offer is understood.
Is a further option to combine Option 3 and 4? Surely a maritime surface search radar is also a rather lightweight system compared to the ASTOR radar onboard Sentinal R1 at present. So fit the aircraft with the Blue Kestral radar and console from the Merlin MH2 AND a single Goodrich DB110 sensor and console for a single image analyst and retain a satellite uplink. Then with an inflight refuelling probe you have a very capable aircraft which can switch between ISTAR roles as required.
Further to my BTW remark, the original question was this one:
Tubby
January 7, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Can anyone tell me the difference between the MC-12 Liberty and the RC-12 Guardrail, as the US army seems to think the MC-12 is pretty nifty as they are ordering more of them.
- Re: the MC, Army/ AF spat ended with USAF keeping their ownership
- Re: RC-version, who uses it and what for (I don’t know)?
The most impressive point about Phoenix, from the description given here, was the decision to have an airframe and a separate pod: in Phoenix’s case it seems the pod was good and the airframe terrible. This should definitely be the approach taken on all ISTAR buys from now on: sensors should be podded where possible and built round a common power and data interface, so that (say) your maritime radar or your imaging/designation pod isn’t only available on one fleet, but can be hung off any airframe that happens to be available. Future MPA buys then become a case of asking “what cheap, reliable airframe can we buy and fit with Common Sensor Mounts and a mission system?” And if you find that you’ve bought a terrible MALE drone or tactical surveillance aircraft, that’s not a problem; you can stopgap it by hanging the sensor pods off a Tornado or a King Air instead while you buy a better airframe.
The Guardrail is primariliy a commint platform, Liberty is a bit more multi purpose
Interesting read there TD, I very much doubt the Shadow R1 could carry the weight of a turreted gun whilst retaining the systems carried… if it also has SAR then I’d imagine its approaching its redline for ops in high and hot areas.
Also, maybe you overestimate the roles of the AAC’s and RAF’s Islander/defender force? I mean, I havent read/seen them anywhere other than Northolt/Northern Island (the latter being the reason of their existance I read, ‘the troubles’ period). I think they are for homeland roles, clean and shadey ones. Also, I think there is now one with the radar nose on the MoD books too, not sure really! I know little of them.
You’ve touched on something I havent thought about; the Sentinel mutated and re-roled to fill the MPA gap. You and the site makes a good argument and would seem a cheap alternative; especially if we are teamed with the Canadians… sure multi national projects are a rough ride; but the Canadians really dont have that much a difference in its MPA roles than us, and it’d give their aviation industry a good boost with our investment and specialists. Though I can’t help but wonder if we’d bondoogle it (Nimrod ’2000′!) or there’s hidden daggers (weight problems like you ID’ed) that’d make it a painful journey.
Finally, Bio-Fuels are bad news unless you produce them from the Net leftovers of agricultural production… lol seriously; hidden daggers there; it does more harm than good; much to the woe of South American farmers and Amazon forest.
@Mike, I punted the idea of a 350ER armed with something lightweight and with a limited ammunition feed as a ‘wild west’ idea, but its an intriguing thought, kind of like a Bronco on the cheap. Look at the weights and power of the a King Air 350ER v OV-10 Bronco for an even more interesting comparison!
Just because you haven’t seen the Defenders doesn’t mean they aren’t working, sneaky sneaky and all that!
On the Sentinel, I was just thinking about ways to make use of the very expensive airframes. I suspect they will simply sit in a hangar somewhere because to revert them to a point where they can be sold on to the civvy market is going to cost a lot.
I mentioned bio fuels in passing really, I agree with on the broader points, its interesting that they seem to be able to use diesel though
Personally, I think slapping a DB-110 would not be a hugely expensive project and would give us a strategic capability we have been really missing
@ mike, ref defenders “elsewhere” TD is correct, however he’s also right about OPSEC so can’t expand!!
RE “350ER armed with something lightweight and with a limited ammunition feed ” I am doubtful (like Mike), but on the lightweight issue, the first time I read about the Guardian solution (for the V22), it was only based on a HMG (.50 cal). To me the piccies now look like a 20mm cannon?
Who on earth imagines it’s going to be a *saving* to tear the Sentinels apart and put them back together? This is an excuse not to oppose the original decision.
I wd further note that most of the UAV options are powerpoint, and even if not, we’ve not ordered them, we’ve not budgeted for buying them, and there are no airframes on a production line somewhere. They are mythical until delivered. Further, we’re not-really buying F-35 now – we’re not going to have enough to use them out of role. So this doesn’t exist either.
We need to either get decisions altered, or else accept that there will be zero ISTAR in 2015. No ASTOR, no MRA4, no ASACS, no available F35, perhapsmaybe Watchkeeper for the things Watchkeeper can do. Even the DA42s are going post-2015.
I presume the point is to keep future govts. close to the Americans’ apron strings?
Hi Alex,
I am with you in the broad argument.
But regarding “Who on earth imagines it’s going to be a *saving* to tear the Sentinels apart and put them back together” it is not as bad as you make it out to be. E.g.
Malta has just acquired King Air 350ERs as MPAs (they sit in the middle of the Med so the normal issue about range is addressed by that). They are simply flown to Germany, fitted with a very extensive sensor suite and then flown on to Malta.
TD I agree with a lot of what you say I would like some more commonality in the manned ISTAR fleet and perhaps that can be achieved. I like the shadow and diamond aircraft and we should keep them in service. I would also keep the sentinel aircraft (there was a proposal to add the canberra cameras to astor at one point) maybe expand there number see using the Global express aircraft to replace 32 sqn and even a joint project with Canadians on a maritime patrol version could be possible also. It is worth remembering a lot of this aircraft is manufactured by bombardier in Belfast. The AAR probe was unable to be fitted to this aircraft and I doubt a change of role will change that for reasons I wont go into. I do here rumours that a couple of allied countries have enquired about the possible purchase of this entire system from the UK already so I doubt they’ll last must beyond their sdsr mandated end date.
Hi TD
I am a little confused, are you very aircrew bias, do not really understand the true cost of aircraft ownership or just like to post controversial comments for a reaction! – i think I know the answer
Anyway, a few comments – you keep going on about how flexible and how much endurance a manned platform has over a UAV – not true, the real problem is the man. As soon as the aircraft takes off the clock is ticking on the endurance of the individuals inside the airframe and their subsequent competence as the mission endures – fatigue is a problem and any manned platform has a finite time it can stay airborne due to the aircrew alone. Anybody who has flown in any military aircraft know it is not Virgin Upper Class or even BA economy! – Call in the UAV, who really can endure long periods, provide real persistence (without refuelling every 30mins) and can swap crews in accordance with CRM to maintain alert crew s focused on the mission or have subject matter experts on standby to assist with the exploitation of whatever sensor is being employed. However, I do admit the current real advantage of manned aircraft is their flexibility to operate in all classes of airspace – but for how long? At some point and in the near future, UAVs will with technology advancement and regulation change be in the same airspace.
ASTOR – a great concept. An excellent wide area surveillance capability that has a direct downlink to the ground commander through tactical ground stations and as such speeds up situational awareness. However, what it really lacked through no air to air refuelling was true endurance and persistence. With limited growth potential on the platform due to weight problems, this is a real issue. Therefore, if you look at a similar UAV platforms with a radar, ASTOR becomes a very expensive ISTAR option. The true saving will be through disposal and not having to pay the through life cost of the system. Saved money = new UAV (poss Scavenger in more numbers with greater capability and flexability – ASTOR again but on a more affordable platform!).
Cost of Ownership – Are you really telling me that the cost of H450 is more expensive than DA42? Come on! Do not just look at the initial cost to buy an airframe but look at the whole cost – the crew, training the crew including all those involved in keeping the aircraft in the air, sustainability, infrastructure, logistics, maintenance costs and intervals to keep a manned platform in the air etc..etc… and you will soon see the cost benefit of owning a UAV to provide the same or better capability (yes there are limitations, but money talks!) It would be an interesting exercise to cost the thousands of ISTAR hours Reaper and H450 have notched up vs the same capability provided by a manned platform!!
Hi Abderus
Of course I am guilty of making the odd outrageous claims just to get the debate going, it would be a pretty boring blog if all I said was, yep, everything is OK
But, I am not so sure the whole cost of UAV’s is as low as you think and the USAF and US Army seem to be thinking the same, they are investing in manned platforms not for the endurance (which i agree is limited with manned) but because of flexibility and low costs for a given outcome. To be perfectly honest, I honestly don’t know the exact figures and I suspect only a few people do but by reading the tea leaves it would seem to me that the promise of UAV’s in terms of flexibility, all weather operation, bandwidth issues, cost and others have not yet quite reached the point where we can sack the light blue just yet.
I guess what I am saying is, lets be pragmatic, not be over zealous and realise there is benefit in lowish cost manned platforms for a number of reasons.
Must admit I am pretty taken with the ‘optionally manned’ thang as a transitional step for the non combat oriented ISTAR platforms though
On ASTOR, I do wonder if its altitude and pretty large array can be matched with a lower altitude and smaller array system like reaper/Scavenger but technology is relentless isn’t it and maybe taking a lesser capability now in the grand scheme isn’t that bad given the likely future use of these types of system and growth potential of the new generation. ASTOR seems to be one of those systems that has taken so long to bring into service, its almost a generation behind.
Of course, all things being equal, it would have been great to keep it in service but i do like the option of turning them into an ultra long range PR9 replacement
Hi Abderus, v good post, just to keep you going, a few points:
“in any military aircraft… know it is not Virgin Upper Class or even BA economy” SU-34 with a swing (ferry range) of 6.000km, a little corridor between the seats (to exercise), even some sort of toilet? Keeping the crew “fighting fit”
“really telling me that the cost of H450 is more expensive than DA42?”
- $ 500k airframe; fully kitted out @3-4 times that? This is for the DA52; both the airframe and the kit off the shelf?And generic skills to fly (not the analysts) and to maintain it
- vs. £ 16m a piece; was that before or after the £ 200m cost overrun, and this was for the airframe straight from Israel, tried (but not used, those specific ones); then the fitting with kit… it is all in those numbers, but the training of the crew and the maintenance back up is not – they are all mission specific (even though will come out with a lot of transferable skills for the next programme)
I don’t really know any of this, I just read the press…
Your per hour argument is a strong one (as I can be persuaded, will leave thinking about it for tomorrow)
su-34 lie down bed and bog, side by side seating, no need to duplicate instruments in cockpit, bloody clever those russians!!!
If the Sentinel is hampered by a too small Global Express airframe, then rather than scrap an expensive capability, transfer the kit to the new , larger (3.4m longer) Global 7000 due 2016. Should have room for an HD EO turret + other capability. The Global 7000 costs $65 million, so an expense, but we would get back the sale of the Global Express even if they are broken for parts.
My homework,
Will have to divide all those big figures by 30.000 (hrs)
@ArmChairCivvy (January 12, 2011 at 9:57 pm)
The Su-34 doesn’t have a range of 6000km – that flight from Lipetsk to Khabarovsk was achieved with refueling, although initial reports implied it was without additional fuel. However a ferry range of ~3000km with standard drop tanks and 4000km with full drop tanks is still a useful step up from the 3000km or so of the Fencer and is comparable to the F-15E. The low-level performance will be nothing like that ferry range though. And I wouldn’t oversell the crew comfort levels, it’s an overgrown single-seat Flanker at heart, it still makes Easyjet look luxurious!
Hi El Sid,
Yes, the reports were amended as you say. They have improved on the range with PAK FA (more air defence emphasis than with the SU34), which according to Wiki is Ferry range: 5,500 km[67] (3417 miles).
About the number of seats:
2 parallel K-36DM ejector seats, with a small aisle in between. The ejector seats can be activated at any speed and altitude, even when the plane is on the ground.
However, the most important aspect is the extremely low numbers for the new, performant planes. “They” have therefore engaged in the same kind of thinking exercise we had on the RN thread, re: how can you be where you are needed when the numbers don’t allow for it. Here’s a piece of that “… will be enough for the Air Force’s new concept.
The concept is focused not so much on the combat characteristics of the Su-34, as on its long range, the ability to refuel in the air (including by other Su-34 aircraft with additional fuel tanks under their wings), and its comfortable cabin…. Units armed with such aircraft can be used in the so-called pendulum operations, when an Air Force unit bombs a terrorist base in Central Asia today, delivers a strike at a missile base in Europe the next day, and three days later flies to the Indian Ocean to support a combined group of the Northern, Pacific and Black Sea fleets, with flights from a base in Russia.”
- note the single task force for the navy as they, too, lack in the numbers of ships (in good repair)
pendulum operations
I presume that’s Russian for “swing role”!
Units armed with such aircraft can be used in the so-called pendulum operations, when an Air Force unit bombs a terrorist base in Central Asia today, delivers a strike at a missile base in Europe the next day, and three days later flies to the Indian Ocean to support a combined group of the Northern, Pacific and Black Sea fleets, with flights from a base in Russia.
Something tells me that if Russia decides to go to war simultaneously with Nato, an Indian Ocean naval power, and a central Asian state, it may have bigger problems to deal with than can be solved by giving its bomber pilots a bit of space on the flight deck where they can stretch their legs.
Off-topic, but this is the best piece I’ve read on China’s DF-21D ASBM :
http://www.chinasignpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/China_SignPost_14_ASBM_IOC_2010-12-26.pdf
Not so OT though, it spends quite a bit of time talking about how they’re upgrading their C4ISR systems to cope with the anti-carrier mission, some of their recent satellite launches are interesting from that perspective.
The more I think about the decision to cancel the Nimrod and bin the Sentinel, the more it makes no sense. What the MoD seems to be saying is that once combat operations are over in Afghanistan we no longer need or will ever need the capability provided by the sentinel. They also seem to be saying that never again will we need to track and destroy submarines.
So if there is no immediate use if a capability then it cxn be disposed of!!! If that’s the case, then surely one could argue that we have no need for the carriers and their F35s. As the savings for selling the carriers and NOT buying the F35 dwarf the costs saved by getting rid of Nimrod and Sentinel,then that would make more financial sense.
Take that logic to the ultimate conclusion, let’s can all the armed forces,as we are not likely to need them anytime soon!!
I don’t think that the MoD believes that this capability gap can be replaced by UAVs either. For example the US has more numerous and complex UAV than anyone but is not getting rid of it’s manned ISTAR resources. So it’s purely financial. So as I say if it’s a case of we don’t think we are going to need a capability in the near to middle future then tge Carriers make more sense.
Whilst talking about tge carriers, surely it would make more sense to have opted for LPHD type vessels operating a Harrier 3 type aircraft than the abortion we have with the QE class carriers.
What the MoD seems to be saying is that once combat operations are over in Afghanistan we no longer need or will ever need the capability provided by the sentinel. They also seem to be saying that never again will we need to track and destroy submarines.
Phil – it’s a mistake to think that once a capability has been discarded it can never be reacquired. We got rid of proper (non-STOVL) carriers almost twenty years ago when we refitted Hermes for STOVL; now we’re getting that capability back with the CVF. We got rid of long-range strategic bombers not that much more recently, when the Vulcans were retired; we could get that capability back if we wanted to buy the aircraft and work up the crews.
It’s more difficult to recover a capability that you haven’t maintained, but not at all impossible. And it’s not a capability we currently need, and we are rather short of money. In any realistic ranking of UK armed forces capabilities, surely “hunting and killing fast-attack submarines in the North Atlantic” must come fairly low down the list, especially when we already have quite a few other platforms (T23, Trafalgar, Astute) optimised to do this?
@A you are if course correct about getting the lost HWare, that was only part of my argument. Yes we will lose the skills to operate them as well. It is the time and cost to recover the lost capability. Nimrod can of couse do much more than hunt subs, admittedly we did not make full use of it’s capabilities. The point is was the selection of Nimrod and Sentinel the best choice.
We have canned arguably the most advanced and capable maritime patrol aircraft. That also
has the capability to perform as a long range
heavy bomber and Sigint/Elint platform. Is that and the Sentinel really less important than the highly compromised UK CVF and the very very expensive F35???
I believe we need Nimrod and Sentinel more than the wholly bastardised and compromised CVF and overhyped F35, not too mention it would save even more money as that seems to be the main point of the SDSR.
The problem I have canning Nimrod is that we lost more than ASW, it also lost us the only platform for long-range SAR and surveillance, from what I can see, unless the Coast Guard is operating air craft in this role we are pretty much the only coastal country who is not dirt broke who does not have a platform to carry out long-range SAR & surveillance.
Combine this with the impending loss of military SAR pilots when we retire the Sea Kings and you can see why we are having difficulties now persuading a consortium to take on SAR under a PFI contract.
Hy TD,
Do you have a chapter on space in the making?
thanks
@p4, yes, kind of, more in the context of comms than surveillance though
A good defence of the Sentinel System, although some of your conclusions are limited by you not having the full facts (not your fault)
Weight Issues – The Sentinel is in no way weight limited, this was a rumour from early in the programme. The Global BD700′s used in the programme where delivered when Bombardier only certified them to 96000lbs MAUW – this has since changed to over 100,000lbs MAUW and would simply require recertification (which the MOD will not pay for). The Mid-life upgrade programme would also have saved considerable weight allowing plenty of room for extras. The refuelling probe was dropped in favour of another capability on cost not weight issues.
The aircraft would need to be stripped out and re-roled for Maritime (Long range SAR and surface search) – No Need, the current radar is just as good tracking ships as it is at tracking vehicles. Maritime tracking is often used during UK training to simulate the large open-desert tracking of Afghanistan. Raytheon have further developed an optimised maritime-mode for the radar but again, this needs paying for.
Remove the radar and fit DB110 – no need to remove the radar, part of the initial programme was to carry the DB110 sensor in the aft of the canoe. This was only deleted at a late stage and replaced with a second datalink antenna. Removing this antenna (which is not needed) would free up a space that was designed to house the DB110 and it’s electronics and still could. The software even accepts DB110 imagery directly.
Overtaken in performance by newer system – hmm, have a think about the array size on the Sentinel and then compare that to the array size for watchkeeper/scavanger. Although people have stated that UAV/F35 will also do GMTI/SAR they are not taking into account coverage – it would take a lot of watchkeepers to cover the same GMTI area as a single sweep of the sentinel radar. The radar on Sentinel IS a new system, only hitting IOC 2 years ago and is easily the best airborne radar system in the world at this time for GMTI.
Re-role for VIP transport/sell off as Globals – not a chance, to remove the mission equipment and fill in the holes would cost considerably more than the price of a plain used Global Express of which plenty of low-hours examples are available. No civvy company would touch these high-cycle, high-hours airframes with a barge pole.
No room to grow – Plenty of room, just no cash.
Hi SkySpy, welcome to Think Defence
When I mentioned VIP transport it was in the context of keeping them in the RAF, not selling them off, but it really would be criminal to do that wouldn’t it. Just looking at various options.
We all accept that the Scavenger/F35/Watchkeeper combination would not be as effective but you can see the thought process.
Very interesting comments about a maritime capability of the radar system but I think there would be a little more needed for that role
My favourite option would be to put in a DB110 and as you and others have said, this was part of the original concept. This week has shown the benefit of the Sentinel (I think this and MRA4 were the most ridiculous decisions of SDSR) so it is surely madness to push on with culling it.
Combining the radar system with DB110 would produce a superlative capability, rapid response, long legged, persistent, multi sensor and data linked back to the ranch.
Anyway, thanks for the comments
note to Dr fox read the above,then write a cheque! If in doubt pick up today’s paper
Skyspy
Excellent analysis that I absolutely agree with. The next software update should make them much more effective across a great many more area from what im told. I would absolutly fit the DB110 and what a capability that would offer.
TD
As for the radar I was under the impression that the same or very similar radar is fitted to the P8 so perhaps their is a use in that area too. Also unless the scavenger program has a platform at a capability level similar to Global Hawk then of the list of assets you give as replacement for Astor that could be used in a operation similar to the one we are in this week would be F35.
Hi SkySpy,
Thanks for that, as half of the time we have the facts, and half of the time we only postulate!
Hi TD, Let’s not get R1 (grounded for a while, not right now) and MR4 (scrapped, for WHICH reason?, mixed up in the argumentation).
Thanks @Sky Spy, always interesting to learn about how kit comes to be how it is, and what would be easy/difficult to do in future.
Just one question – you mention the hours on the Sentinel. Presumably they’re getting fairly thrashed in the sandpit, so how much life will they have come 2015? I understand that’s a bit of a string-length question, but from the outside it’s plausible that the retirement decision could be driven by the fact that eg the airframes will be up to say 90% of a reasonable life-expectancy-without-major/expensive-SLEP. (and ditto on the ELINT version of the plane-that-cannot-be-mentioned??) Bravo Zulu to all involved, it seems to have been an all-too-rare example of a really successful procurement programme.
As an aside, I noticed a bit of naughtiness from Hague on the radio today. He came out with something along the lines of fighting Libya with a post-SDSR force, implying that all the cuts had already happened – I thought immediately of Sentinel.
)