RAF to scrap Sentinel surveillance aircraft due to cuts

[SpilsbyPete]

Pardon my ignorance.
If we lose the Sentinel's in 2021.Can the Shadow's offer some kind of coverage.

[Davef68]

Soooo! I wanted somebody else to confirm that the RAF Voyagers should've had Refuelling Booms at the outset before we got into that ridiculously restraining Airtanker Contract. Now we're stuck with grey airliners fitted with underwing pods & unable to refuel an increasing number of recent purchases/leases. Who could've ever seen this coming?

The requirement for a boom was dropped at an early stage of the FSTA programme as a cost saving, as the only aircraft in the RAF at the time that could use a boom were the Sentry (also equipped with a probe) and the C17 (whose initial lease terms precluded IFR, and it was not envisaged that it would be needed for an aircraft intended as a hub to hub airlifter).

No-one at that time could imagine that Nimrod R1 and MRA4 would have to be scrapped, so there was no way of expecting the RAF to operate the RC135 or P8. There were plenty of USAF boom equipped tankers for Allies who required that facility, and in the past the RAF's P&D tankers have been regularly used by the USN and other Allies needing that form of refuelling on operations.

Hindsight is terrific but in the early'00s the added cost, complelxity and extra (new) training requirements for a boom equipped tanker were deemed too much.

[Davef68]

Pardon my ignorance.
If we lose the Sentinel's in 2021.Can the Shadow's offer some kind of coverage.

What Shadow does is obviously cloaked in secrecy, but I suspect it's more of a tactical asset, dealing with and controlling 'local' operations (it was a replacement for the Nimrod in that role, and some of the Afghanistan books detail what they did), where as Sentinel gives you a much broader strategic 'whole battlefield' view of operations.

The Americans have tested an airborne ground surveillance system on the P-8, both form a point of view of replacing the P-3s the USN uses in that role and with an eye on the E-8 replacement - that may make it a potential Sentinel replacement

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/exclu ... 1562912667

[Agent K]

Well said Davef68, unfortunately there's a good few Procurement and operational experts here and elsewhere who also have 20/20 hindsight. The reality of the situation is as you portray and yes the correct decision was made at the time.

[Supra]

Quote[ Hindsight is terrific but in the early'00s the added cost, complexity and extra (new) training requirements for a boom equipped tanker were deemed too much.] Quote

So in your opinion, forethought is to be discouraged in those that make these historically enormous gaffs? The Procurement 'specialists' landed us in a Contract with Airtanker/Banditos that lasts up to 2035 without any consideration for evolving requirements over that timeframe. If we had the 'full monty' specification KC-330 up-front (Cargo door & floor, boom, etc) it would've cost more at the outset, but relatively cheap in terms going forward to have the flexibility now...that we're stuck with for the next 17 years! In a Contract so tightly bound-up that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is required with Airtanker to allow USAF (others?) to IFR the RAF C-17 because they can't. You could always put a drogue adaptor on a boom, but not a boom on a drogue! Extremely short-sighted.
There were dozens of clues available to the decision-makers. For instance, tell me the following data wasn't available to those who wrote the Spec'
Comparable A330 MRTT fuel off load rates:
Centre-line hose 4000lb/minute (RAF Voyager)
Wing hose 2810lb/minute (RAAF KC-30A)
Boom 8040lb/minute (RAAF KC-30A)
A large aircraft requires twice as long on the uprated centreline hose on a Voyager than it would on a boom? Add-in the fact that Voyager by Airtanker costs the UK more per hour than any other KC-330 operator by a fair margin & we'll never own the knackered fleet of halfway-house airframes. (still, at least they can quickly go back to being airliners )

[Vulcanone]

And there was me thinking someone had found out something new about Sentinel retirements

[filmman]

MOD's problem is that no one is really in charge Finance. They are continually running a hot budget, have no long term vision, assume all well be perfect and shut their eyes to sub-standard but cheap deals and finally waste money by cancelling projects that deliver because they have no alternative.
Vision defect - they order 2 ski jump "carriers" and VTOL aircraft of limited capability - why? Instead no jump but cat and traps means inter-operability with USN and cheaper, longer range F35s. But do we need carriers instead of planes and troops?
They scrap Nimrod but order a 2 engine plane of more limited range that our tankers can't refuel. Alternative P1 deal, 4 engines, longer range and possible probe and drogue.
Sentinel scrapped because the money runs out and they kid themselves that P8 can do; providing they don't cancel or cut numbers?
SA 80 rifle?
Underpowered, unreliable army lorries.
D45 destroyer underpowered, predecessor (D42) had cracks across the forecastle because ship was arbitrarily shortened.
Not sufficient ships to protect carriers.
What next.
Eventually democracy might result in a politian with ability grasping the Turkey by the neck and running MOD within budget and capability - the Empire ended a long time ago and we have to be brutally realistic about what we can afford to do.
Filmman

[ColintheCaterpillar]

Quote[ Hindsight is terrific but in the early'00s the added cost, complexity and extra (new) training requirements for a boom equipped tanker were deemed too much.] Quote

So in your opinion, forethought is to be discouraged in those that make these historically enormous gaffs? The Procurement 'specialists' landed us in a Contract with Airtanker/Banditos that lasts up to 2035 without any consideration for evolving requirements over that timeframe. If we had the 'full monty' specification KC-330 up-front (Cargo door & floor, boom, etc) it would've cost more at the outset, but relatively cheap in terms going forward to have the flexibility now...that we're stuck with for the next 17 years! In a Contract so tightly bound-up that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is required with Airtanker to allow USAF (others?) to IFR the RAF C-17 because they can't.

With hindsight it's always easy to order a non-existant aircraft. Who'd want to refuel a C-17 anyway. Training burdens are enough without doing AAR too perhaps... An MoU is required for just about every type of international tanking and vice-versa...

You could always put a drogue adaptor on a boom, but not a boom on a drogue! Extremely short-sighted.

Boom-Drogue adaptors are designed for Boom equipped tankers to take probe and drogue tasks if they don't have wing mounted AAR pods (ie, KC-135s until relatively recently). You can't refuel large aircraft from a BDA. Therefore, if you have a wing AAR pod equipped aircraft, they are pointless. So, for Air Tanker, utterly incorrect and not an argument.

There were dozens of clues available to the decision-makers. For instance, tell me the following data wasn't available to those who wrote the Spec'
Comparable A330 MRTT fuel off load rates:
Centre-line hose 4000lb/minute (RAF Voyager)
Wing hose 2810lb/minute (RAAF KC-30A)
Boom 8040lb/minute (RAAF KC-30A)
A large aircraft requires twice as long on the uprated centreline hose on a Voyager than it would on a boom? Add-in the fact that Voyager by Airtanker costs the UK more per hour than any other KC-330 operator by a fair margin & we'll never own the knackered fleet of halfway-house airframes. (still, at least they can quickly go back to being airliners )

Yep, and flow rates are only one part of the story. For example it can be argued that once connected to a P&D equipped tanker, a large aircraft on the centerline will take longer but actually the range of movement allowed by the hose makes it less fatiguing for the aircrew. The boom, although the boom operator plugs it in once you've got underneath, has a much smaller cone of movement, meaning it's actually harder work. So, swings and roundabouts.

The fact that it costs far more "per hour" may well be due to what's been included in those costs. We could have bought it, and be operating them nose in to a dilapidated pre-WW2 C-Type hangar.