RAF to scrap E-3 Sentry this year

[ColintheCaterpillar]

Exactly - E-3, and more so E-7 is fine as part of a coalition effort, but little use as a sovereign asset.

But is a capability that we choose to offer to NATO, in the main probably due to geography as the U.K. forms the north-western shoulder of Europe and the corporate expertise we have in such Ops.

For coalition ops I'd much rather we pool our assets with a type common to the rest of NATO. I don't know what they intend to do with the Nato E3 fleet long term, but there is a risk that we end up operating a fleet of 3 E-7's that will be expensive to update (due to being a small fleet) and allowed to go obsolete in the same way the E-3D's have.

The E-3 is obsolete in both ways. It was arguably poor choice of base airframe brought about by the failure of Nimrod AEW. At least with a 737NG based platform it is likely to only by a mission kit upgrade issue as opposed to a (just) post WW2 1st generation 4-jet. It’s only saving grace was CFM engines!

If it's only any use as part of a coalition, I'd rather we were buying into either the NATO or USAF buy. Trouble is, I don't think either will happen in the next 10 years by which time our E-7's will be due their first MLU.

And by which time Sentry would have been long gone in any circumstances. We had to take the initiative and proceed with a replacement, which will still be able to operate alongside, and provide an arguably superior service, than the legacy E-3.

[Malcolm]

We had to take the initiative and proceed with a replacement....

Why? We've no AEW sovereign cover now, and probably wont have any for 2-3 years. During that time I assume we'll rely on either NATO or French E-3's if needed. And when we do get E-7's, at present it looks like we'll have at most 2 ready for ops, and one in re-fit, and they'll only be used in a coalition. If that;s correct, then I'd rather we spent the money buying back into the NATO program. That would keep crews in jobs and skill levels up until NATO take the decision on what to do next. There is a danger NATO won't renew at all, and E-3's will soldier on for another 20 years.

Offering UK assets to support NATO/coalition ops is fine, I'm happy with that, but it has to be secondary to the defence of the UK. Buying something that NATO wants/needs but is of no real use to the UK on a sovereign basis should be coming out of a NATO budget.

On balance I'd rather the money went on some combination of more Typhoons (preferably with the Captor E radar) and more P-8's. E-7 is a want, not a need.

[ColintheCaterpillar]

Why? We've no AEW sovereign cover now, and probably wont have any for 2-3 years. During that time I assume we'll rely on either NATO or French E-3's if needed. And when we do get E-7's, at present it looks like we'll have at most 2 ready for ops, and one in re-fit, and they'll only be used in a coalition. If that;s correct, then I'd rather we spent the money buying back into the NATO program. That would keep crews in jobs and skill levels up until NATO take the decision on what to do next. There is a danger NATO won't renew at all, and E-3's will soldier on for another 20 years.

A nice idea but unlikely to be practicable for most personnel, with limited read over for roles on the jet from E-3 to E-7. No point sending the Navs or Flight Engineers. No point sending the techs. You could send the pilots, but they might have other ideas, and the rear crew manning seems to be very different. And you’d have to ask NATO partners to give up positions to put them into.

And on your last point, I doubt it very much.

Offering UK assets to support NATO/coalition ops is fine, I'm happy with that, but it has to be secondary to the defence of the UK. Buying something that NATO wants/needs but is of no real use to the UK on a sovereign basis should be coming out of a NATO budget.

Based on Article 5, NATO is the defence of the U.K. That’s why when the Bears, Blackjacks et al get intercepted, the RAF are generally the second or third to do so, as our NATO allies have told us they’re coming.

[Malcolm]

Why? We've no AEW sovereign cover now, and probably wont have any for 2-3 years. During that time I assume we'll rely on either NATO or French E-3's if needed. And when we do get E-7's, at present it looks like we'll have at most 2 ready for ops, and one in re-fit, and they'll only be used in a coalition. If that;s correct, then I'd rather we spent the money buying back into the NATO program. That would keep crews in jobs and skill levels up until NATO take the decision on what to do next. There is a danger NATO won't renew at all, and E-3's will soldier on for another 20 years.

A nice idea but unlikely to be practicable for most personnel, with limited read over for roles on the jet from E-3 to E-7. No point sending the Navs or Flight Engineers. No point sending the techs. You could send the pilots, but they might have other ideas, and the rear crew manning seems to be very different. And you’d have to ask NATO partners to give up positions to put them into.

I'm saying I'm not sure we should buy E-7 at all (though that boat may have sailed) - At least until any NATO buy. Transfer the current E-3D crews over to NAEWF, and fund part of the NATO E3 fleet. Then wait to see what NATO/USAF do. If USAF come up with a B767/777/787 based solution, and persuade NATO to do the same (lets face it most NATO money comes from the US) then we'd have bought a pig in a poke. Can't see the current NAEWF partners refusing the additional funding.

Offering UK assets to support NATO/coalition ops is fine, I'm happy with that, but it has to be secondary to the defence of the UK. Buying something that NATO wants/needs but is of no real use to the UK on a sovereign basis should be coming out of a NATO budget.

Based on Article 5, NATO is the defence of the U.K. That’s why when the Bears, Blackjacks et al get intercepted, the RAF are generally the second or third to do so, as our NATO allies have told us they’re coming.

Yes, but NATO specifically only covers the North Atlantic. The UK has interests not covered by the NATO charter. E-3's aren't used to detect Bears and Blackjacks now, and E-7's won't be when we get them either, so IMV they aren't a must have.

[ColintheCaterpillar]

E-3's aren't used to detect Bears and Blackjacks now, and E-7's won't be when we get them either, so IMV they aren't a must have.

I didn’t say they were - it’s hardly like they are seen 24/7 on Flightradar. I merely stated they offer the ability to cover (amongst all the other areas) the necessary airspace in our particular geographic location if required.

Or the desert.

Or anywhere else we may decide to deploy them (presumably still keeping access to NATO’s fine selection of FOBs).

Better to keep a small capability than none at all.

Transfer the current E-3D crews over to NAEWF, and fund part of the NATO E3 fleet.

That’s where it falls down. It’s a small component and you are really going to struggle with the reality of asking people to up sticks and head abroad for an indeterminate amount of time.

That’s paper thinking versus reality of manning requirements.

[reaper493]

101/106 are now parked on echo dispersal, only 103 remains on Alpha.

[Strike01]

Works required maybe, so relocating elsewhere

[Thunder]

with the reality of asking people to up sticks and head abroad for an indeterminate amount of time..

Isn’t that part of serving in the Forces though?

[Tally-ho]

Correct 'Thunder'

[ColintheCaterpillar]

with the reality of asking people to up sticks and head abroad for an indeterminate amount of time..

Isn’t that part of serving in the Forces though?

I’m the old days, yes. Today, less so.

There’s less smooth these days to temper the “rough” and a lot smaller total force to pick those people from. 30 - 40 years ago you could do it, but fleets like Sentry are now so small that people are more able to vote with their feet, with no one left to backfill.

[toom317]

If you can't take a joke you shouldn't join up. What would you have all the personnel on the Sentry and Sentinel fleets do now. Just sit around Waddo all day, doing nothing and sandbagging about the good old days?

[Ghost from above]

Just like to say that when you sign up.You sign up to serve wherever in the world that might be.I have seen individuals throw there teddy bears on the floor to try to get what they want.It doesn't work as there are plenty more who want to get on and learn new skills. Therefore it may produce a small hiccup but inevitably its business as usual.
We fund NATO with money as well as sharing crown assets for the greater good.In the short term we can use other NATO assets for the common good.
Coverage for identification of assets approaching UK is a well engineered UK/ NATO led multi layer system that on the whole doesn't rely on any AWACS capability.
The AWACS is in effect dead as a singular platform such as the E-3, with aircraft such as the E-7 proving that it can fulfill a multitude of roles, from AWAC to command and control of land forces. Hence there will be no sitting around with shades on having a BBQ as the assets will be used a lot more. So less different types less cost even less chance for teddy bear throwing.

[page_verify]

Just like to say that when you sign up.You sign up to serve wherever in the world that might be.I have seen individuals throw there teddy bears on the floor to try to get what they want.It doesn't work as there are plenty more who want to get on and learn new skills. Therefore it may produce a small hiccup but inevitably its business as usual.

I'm not sure how close you are those in our armed forces today, but, for those who aren't, the attitudes of those in them today are very different to what they were in 2011, never mind 2001 and 1991. Most in our armed forces today are keen to learn, do great work, and to see the world - but economic conditions mean most NCOs are now there by choice and only while they're getting a good deal. Similarly, commission and pension options mean many officers use their relatively short time with their service as the foundation for a second career.

As ColintheCaterpillar mentioned, the RAF doesn't have an infinite amount of people in an infinite number of places. It has a highly trained specialists - of which almost all can hand their notice in tomorrow - in a few locations. Upset the apple cart and it'll upset you.

[Doughnut]

"The AWACS is in effect dead as a singular platform such as the E-3, with aircraft such as the E-7 proving that it can fulfill a multitude of roles, from AWAC to command and control of land forces."

Agree with this comment all systems, air and ground, are now totally linked electronically. A standing patrol of Typhoons/F-35 can provide an airborne radar picture for transfer back to a Control and Command centre. The P-8 / E-7 and future Sky Guardian will all provide data to this "big picture" My issue is the pitifully small (minimum ?) numbers of assets being purchased and available to the frontline. Especially the constant withdrawal of assets Nimrod, AWACS, Sentinel before replacement systems are in place.

[page_verify]

Everyone always needs more and I'm sure if the MoD had infinite money and time then it'd buy as many as it needs.
But I'm sure someone will be able to say that every E-7 means one less P-8, and every three P-8s mean one less RC-135, and every three RC-135s mean one less Vanguard. The spending priorities caused by MoD's "8 missions" can be cruel given some of them are much more expensive than the others.

[ColintheCaterpillar]

If you can't take a joke you shouldn't join up. What would you have all the personnel on the Sentry and Sentinel fleets do now.

You volunteer to join, and you are often free to leave at fairly short notice, particularly with the manning of a legacy fleet on the way out, which tends to be skewed towards the experienced end of the spectrum.

Funny you should say that. Some will go up north, others will find other jobs in the RAF. Others will do what some of you seem to forget is option three, and decide to do something else entirely, be it their choice through timing or whether they want to move north/the alternatives on offer. Almost none will still have any “return of service” they are obliged to see out.

That’s just real life. As I said, a very different Air Force to the old days where there were 20k more people to play with.

[ColintheCaterpillar]

Just like to say that when you sign up.You sign up to serve wherever in the world that might be.I have seen individuals throw there teddy bears on the floor to try to get what they want.It doesn't work as there are plenty more who want to get on and learn new skills. Therefore it may produce a small hiccup but inevitably its business as usual.

I'm not sure how close you are those in our armed forces today, but, for those who aren't, the attitudes of those in them today are very different to what they were in 2011, never mind 2001 and 1991. Most in our armed forces today are keen to learn, do great work, and to see the world - but economic conditions mean most NCOs are now there by choice and only while they're getting a good deal. Similarly, commission and pension options mean many officers use their relatively short time with their service as the foundation for a second career.

As ColintheCaterpillar mentioned, the RAF doesn't have an infinite amount of people in an infinite number of places. It has a highly trained specialists - of which almost all can hand their notice in tomorrow - in a few locations. Upset the apple cart and it'll upset you.

Exactly this. And less of an appetite to move around to with the way the housing market has gone, particularly those in Lincolnshire. A smaller RAF with fewer locations means more people settling down for the long term in one place.

[Malcolm]

Exactly this. And less of an appetite to move around to with the way the housing market has gone, particularly those in Lincolnshire. A smaller RAF with fewer locations means more people settling down for the long term in one place.

But if they stay, they're going to end up in Lossiemouth anyway. Hmm, Lossiemouth or GIX? I know where I'd rather go.

[ColintheCaterpillar]

Exactly this. And less of an appetite to move around to with the way the housing market has gone, particularly those in Lincolnshire. A smaller RAF with fewer locations means more people settling down for the long term in one place.

But if they stay, they're going to end up in Lossiemouth anyway. Hmm, Lossiemouth or GIX? I know where I'd rather go.

Depends on the manning and who is actually going - and just because you are on E-3 doesn’t automatically mean you have to go to E-7 for all the reasons previously mentioned.

The E-7 crew make up is quite different to E-3 too.

[Malcolm]

Exactly this. And less of an appetite to move around to with the way the housing market has gone, particularly those in Lincolnshire. A smaller RAF with fewer locations means more people settling down for the long term in one place.

But if they stay, they're going to end up in Lossiemouth anyway. Hmm, Lossiemouth or GIX? I know where I'd rather go.

Depends on the manning and who is actually going - and just because you are on E-3 doesn’t automatically mean you have to go to E-7 for all the reasons previously mentioned.

The E-7 crew make up is quite different to E-3 too.

Yes, but what I'm proposing is similar to what happened with Seedcorn after the Nimrod got chopped. You place a smallish number of people into an existing similar environment in order to maintain the capability until you (hopefully) get a replacement airframe of your own. Doesn't have to be existing crews, but since they're currently out of a job it makes sense (to me at least) to offer it to them first.

Nato AWACS's are in the process of being updated again, which it is hoped will keep them in service till 2035. USAF AWACS have been upgraded to Block 40/45 standard, with the last one being handed back to the USAF just last year. I'll bet 50p that neither service will have their first replacement delivered the next 10-15 years, by which time our fleet of 3 E-7's will either be obsolete (again) or on their second MLU (dream on).