Jump to content

So long Sentinel


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, junglierating said:

can bet the Q and the P boat will be a long way from shore

 

They will have to spend some money on some much bigger landing craft then.

Although the 'O' was built to civilian standards the Royal Marines are fighting hard to keep her as being the users they know her true value and they have some support. However, I fear this is one fight the Marines can never win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting all your eggs in one basket regarding aircraft usage is never a good idea. If you then encounter a serious technical failing and the type has to be grounded, where do you go from there? 

I remember back in 1980, a Buccaneer broke up in mid-air. The cause was traced back to a modification carried out on the S2 variant which had caused a weakness in the main spar which resulted it becoming over stressed. The entire Buccaneer fleet was grounded for about six months. 

I know that this is a different type of aircraft and a different role, but it serves as an example of the effect that one technical fault can cause. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Head in the clouds. said:

 

They will have to spend some money on some much bigger landing craft then.

Although the 'O' was built to civilian standards the Royal Marines are fighting hard to keep her as being the users they know her true value and they have some support. However, I fear this is one fight the Marines can never win.

They csnt take LC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, oggy4624 said:

E3 has been in service some 27 Years or so, I am sure that sentinel and P8 could cover the E3's role quite easily unless the RJ program is reliant on a 707 /CFM 56 fleet size for training and stores holding given the commonality between the the 707 and 737.

 

P8 and Sentinel cannot do the E-3's job. The E-3 would be vulnerable from the fact that NATO has its own fleet, so it would be less of a capability holiday than the maritime "gap" has been.

 

not sure on the commonality between the E-3's very 1950's tech 707-320 airframe vs an NG 737.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

Can we afford to keep it? Yes.  Where does the money come from? That 0.07% of GDP that we give to Nations who do not need it.

 

Sadly the reality is that the Foreign Aid budget is the most protected area of spending; remember it was just about the first this all the political parties said would be protected when the election was announced. However wrong we think it is, it is here to stay. Hmmm.

 

Sentinel a world beater? Quite possibly. Sadly, possibly ill judged endeavours, such as the US led regime change in Iraq, mean that it is probably fairly limited in its use, as there will be limited interest in any conflict where it will be most valuable. It is likely for the foreseeable future we'll be chasing specific bad guys in Hiluxes using unmanned, loitering, armed technologies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

The Foreign Aid budget is ringfenced by the EU. When we leave, we may see a change, considering the public outcry.

 

No it isn't. It's ringfenced by an Act of UK Parliament. Have you seen how little foreign aid like of Austria give?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm look ocean is old fact we are not as we were fact.Sentinal cannot do an awacs job fact.

Ocean only had LCVPs and beside our ship amphib cap is better than fslklsnd era.Bay class albion bulwark two carriers eventuslly.No frigates or manpower and some challenging helicopters.

Who said sentinal was being retired?

IAW with what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, junglierating said:

They csnt take LC

 

Whatever craft they use it will put a major capital ship like the carriers near to shore if it is to fully take on the roles of the 'O' which no doubt it will not. But my point remains that such a massive asset cannot be in two places at once which brings me back to my original point. The sad fact is that our armed forces have no stretch left, gaps in capability and low moral due to decisions being made on a purely financial basis with no consideration for defence strategy. We are currently fighting what used to be termed 'low intensity warfare' and our forces are overstretched, what would happen if a major war kicked off?

Type 45 with engine troubles ;- 1/3 of surface combat fleet affected.

Harpoon to be retired? :-  main armament of some surface vessels

Challenger II in need of serious update and numbers decimated.

No MPA

Soon to be no Sentinel with a reliance on only Shadow R1

No Flattop landing platform

Problems with F35, both political, fiscal and technical.

A large part of our Army being reserves...how is that going, recruitment is not as expected.

And all this underpinned by very low numbers of everything.

There are probably more things I have missed but it does not matter how you flower it up our armed forces are in a dangerous place.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The true mission of this aircraft was to strangle at birth the Army's CASTOR project. With the transfer of the AAC Islanders to the RAF the Army is finally out of the fixed wing aviation business so the Sentinel is ripe for an uncontested retirement from the RAF. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A wag once stated that CASTOR stood for "Can Anyone State The Operational Requirement?"  Not too far short of the truth, to be honest. 

 

Having worked on the Sentinel programme prior to its operational acceptance, I'm sorry to see it go but, alas, it's too much a one-trick pony that's not particularly well-suited to the scale of operations we currently envisage fighting. 

Edited by mhaselden
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2017 at 6:56 AM, Head in the clouds. said:

 

The sad fact is that our armed forces have no stretch left, gaps in capability and low moral due to decisions being made on a purely financial basis with no consideration for defence strategy. We are currently fighting what used to be termed 'low intensity warfare' and our forces are overstretched, what would happen if a major war kicked off?

 

 

 

The only way we could successfully fight a major war would be as a subordinate partner to the US, which in reality has been the case since the early 1940s. The last time the UK embarked on a major conflict under the illusion that it was still a credible world power, this was the result. We don't need, and we'll never again be able to afford, a full range of capabilities. As a nation, we need to face up to that and use the resources we have to deliver a limited range of genuine, robust capabilities that will allow us to defend essential national interests, rather than trying to maintain the fiction that we can "punch above our weight". Which is indeed likely to mean that independent military action will be restricted to low intensity warfare but hopefully without the overstretch created by pretending we're still something we've long since ceased to be.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, AWFK10 said:

The only way we could successfully fight a major war would be as a subordinate partner to the US, which in reality has been the case since the early 1940s. The last time the UK embarked on a major conflict under the illusion that it was still a credible world power, this was the result. We don't need, and we'll never again be able to afford, a full range of capabilities. As a nation, we need to face up to that and use the resources we have to deliver a limited range of genuine, robust capabilities that will allow us to defend essential national interests, rather than trying to maintain the fiction that we can "punch above our weight". Which is indeed likely to mean that independent military action will be restricted to low intensity warfare but hopefully without the overstretch created by pretending we're still something we've long since ceased to be.

Yep I concur but you going to get flak on here shipmate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, AWFK10 said:

The only way we could successfully fight a major war would be as a subordinate partner to the US, which in reality has been the case since the early 1940s. The last time the UK embarked on a major conflict under the illusion that it was still a credible world power, this was the result. We don't need, and we'll never again be able to afford, a full range of capabilities. As a nation, we need to face up to that and use the resources we have to deliver a limited range of genuine, robust capabilities that will allow us to defend essential national interests, rather than trying to maintain the fiction that we can "punch above our weight". Which is indeed likely to mean that independent military action will be restricted to low intensity warfare but hopefully without the overstretch created by pretending we're still something we've long since ceased to be.

 

Incoming, Incoming....If I remember right the Americans joined us, not the other way round. Why is it an illusion to think we can maintain credible defence forces, nobody expects us to have US size forces but what I think we do expect is that what we do have is joined up to function as a whole, not go scrounging to others for MPA or other capabilities and lets be honest how many times in history have we assumed it cannot happen when it has happened, and with seriously close results. As the fifth largest economy we should be able to have a fully rounded defence structure, we have not and have not had for years.

What is robust about having nuclear subs that have no in house de lousing capability of an MPA or have a capital ship like a carrier land troops that much cheaper and specifically designed ships could do, the whole defence thinking in this country is fatally  flawed because the price will not be a limited range of assets at the bottom of the deep blue briny but real men and women that are the real heart of our defence forces and the only thing holding it together.

I know we will not take on China or North Korea unilaterally and unfortunately that overstretch is here and now and has been for a while and to be honest at the moment we are fighting mainly terrorist factions within states and not states themselves which is a whole different ball game altogether.

My ideal world would be no fighting and just airshows and navy days so we can build models to our hearts content....I can dream. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before we decide what 'credible' means, we have to decide what we want our armed forces to do, and where they are going to do it. If we wish to play the part of international policeman then we need to maintain the expeditionary capabilities and equipment to do so without the expectation that the US will always be there. We have taken part in a number of actions without US involvement and even, as in Sierra Leone, unilaterally. If we want to keep to our NATO commitments only, then we should do that and continue to align and equip our armed forces for that purpose alone. Unfortunately nobody seems willing or able to actually define the role of the armed forces, beyond a woolly mumbling about defending Britain's interests worldwide and seven stated military tasks on the MoD website that are so vague as to be meaningless.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...