54 Squadron have received their first P-8 Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft.

The aircraft, ZP801, has been formally handed over to the Royal Air Force. The aircraft will be based at RAF Lossiemouth.

This comes not long after the second Royal Air Force P-8 took to the air for the first time.

Rendering of a British P-8.

Speaking before the event, a Royal Air Force spokesperson said:

“The team from 54 Squadron have received ZP801, which will fly to Naval Air Station Jacksonville tomorrow to be formally handed over to the Royal Air Force.

It will then be maintained by engineers from Poseidon Line Squadron, enabling our pilots and weapons systems operators on CXX Squadron to continue their training prior to the long voyage across the Atlantic Ocean to the UK in February!”

The Poseidon is based on the Boeing 737-800NG aircraft, the supply chain for which is already supported by UK industry, providing several hundred direct UK jobs.

NOTE: The ‘MAD’ boom is not fitted to US or UK variants.

UK manufacturers also provide specialist sub-systems for the P-8A, for example Marshalls (auxiliary fuel tanks), Martin Baker (crew seats), GE (Weapon Pylons) and GKN Aerospace (windshields).

A P-8 in British livery, courtesy of the MoD.

The UK is buying 9 of the aircraft in total, however, evidence submitted to the Defence Select Committee argues that seven additional P-8 Poseidon aircraft should be acquired, bringing the total fleet to 16 aircraft. 

“SDSR 15 proposed that nine P-8 Poseidon MPA be acquired. At the time, the P-8 was the only MPA on the market capable of meeting the UK’s needs in a reasonable timescale.  Given the urgency of filling this acknowledged gap in the Defence Programme, the Government was undoubtedly justified in selecting that aircraft without going out to competition. However, capable though the P-8 may be, the number of aircraft planned is undoubtedly inadequate to fulfil even the highest priority tasks likely to be assigned to the force in tension and hostilities.”

The second British P-8 takes flight.

The Royal Air Force say that the P-8A Maritime Patrol Aircraft will be known as the Poseidon MRA Mk.1 in UK service.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

139 COMMENTS

  1. This is excellent news; albeit we should purchase at least 16 and perhaps up to 20 if possible. These are critical assets for the UK. It is good they are based upon tried and trusted technology as well with a supply chain in place to support maintenance and repair.

    • While we only have 9 can they also control the new Predator B’s we have on order? This would give them more eyes in the sky even if it isn’t quite as good as more Poseidon’s.

    • Yup, an island nation without MPA’s is a bit nuts, beyond nuts really. A second squadron would make sense to me anyway, one north and one south.

      • I agree , maybe basing a squadron at one of the multiple EX or current RAF airfields in Cornwall or south west England would make most sense, we have the airfields but do we have the will! Nope! Cut cut cut, then get tiny amounts of what we once had lots of back claiming big investment.

        South west uk has a huge Atlantic area to cover we need 16 minimum, but I doubt they would ever split the squadrons up to base one in Cornwall when all support ect is in Lossiemouth. The government are closing dozens of Royal Marines, RAF, ARMY, Navy bases from now to 2028! So can’t see investment into another Poseidon squadron based in England sadly.Good news the RM base in scotland will stay open after being told it would be cut. We need to save all the other dozens of vital millitary bases that will close in the next 8 years. We are loosing far to many capability’s we need.

        • The mod estate is huge and a legacy from ww2. I think there is room to cut – to a point – but now there is too much based at too few locations. I always thought the SW should have an active FJ field somewhere. Either SM, chivenor or yeovilton. Culdrose isn’t enough. We should have MPA and perhaps QRA detachments, a mini Lossiemouth if you like. How soon before we have Chinese carriers in the western Atlantic or even Irish Sea? Particularly if we start sailing in SCS though I don’t see it as the same thing at all.

          • There are QRA facilities at Boscombe, should it be necessary to have QRA in the SW.
            HAS too, though they were for the USAF.

          • I still think of BD as MoD rather than RAF. Is it set up for operations? when was last time aircraft exercised from it – I think we’ll need something a little more permanent for operations in future years

          • It is indeed MoD.

            I was referring to the reports from the early to mid 2000’s after 9/11, when gaps were highlighted in our air defence coverage of the western approaches.

            If a hijacked aircraft was to approach from that direction and we had definite intel on a threat then Boscombe was to have faciilties created to enable a QRA detachment to be forward deployed there. Yeovilton was also mentioned.

            I assume that infrastructure was set up, though I admit I have no definite info on it only what was reported.

            It is on GPSS, it also has HAS, and is secure.

          • Chinese carriers in the Irish Sea?
            Hah!
            There are sound reasons for the UK to have P-8 aircraft but Chinese or Russian carriers threatening the Isle of Man is not one of them. The obvious need is to exclude intelligence gathering submarines from the egress areas of the UK’s submarine base but it’s probably a bit late for that now…

          • The Chinese are building a blue-water navy. Just this week they announced delivery of a new SSN, amphibious warship and with further aircraft carriers on the way. I don’t know why you find it so outrageous that the Chinese would venture to the western atlantic. Not now, but in 5-10 yrs its distinctly possible and likely. after all, the RN are sending a carrier group to the south china sea next year. 3 months ago, if you’d told me a virus would bring down the world’s economy, no one would have believed it!

        • When we had lots of kit, most of it was crap. And we have survived nearly 10 years without major MPA coverage. The 9 P8’s will provide a excellent capability in these budget constrained times, 12 would be nice, but airframe availability will be much higher then back in the Nimrod days.

        • Many of the Army locations have but a single Battalion garrisoned.

          I put more importance in strategic assets like runways, hardstanding, fuel and armaments depots and naval facilities.

          RM Condor is staying open? I missed that. Good news. Makes sense seeming as Barry Buden is up the road and Fort George is going.

          RM Chivenors closure was also rescinded.
          Again sensible considering it has a runway and there is little else in North Devon.

          • I think that many of the single garrison barracks have gone – Canterbury, dover, chester to name a few. Even my local cavalry barracks in Windsor (coombermere) is reducing. I think the MOD have spotted that saving and it is well advanced. Notable exceptions will remain – Knightsbridge, hounslow, Windsor (guards) for obvious reasons

          • Makes sense to me to have fewer small bases and more ‘super bases’. Maybe not tactically (if the Goddam commies were to nuke us for example) but it will be cheaper to run. Some small bases will need to continue for one reason or another and it seems most the boys are happy to stay in and play on their X boxes than go on the lash and have a booze fuelled fight so multiple units in the one establishment would be less of an issue than in the past. All in my opinion of course.

          • Oh? Chester gone already? Yes I had that in mind. And Chepstow and Tern Hill.

            Windsor has Victoria Barracks for the Guards. Oh, you listed that sorry! I guess Combermere is reducing as the HCR is becoming a Strike rolled Armoured Cavalry formation and moving, to Bulford I believe, though I may be wrong it may be Catterick.

            I thought Hyde Park Barracks was on the sales list? Perhaps they could not find anywhere reasonable for the HCMR.

    • Daniele the gap is only closed when all 9 are in service (or a viable force number) Considering the UKs EEZ size, offshore industries, polyvalence of Russian submarines, protection and screening of the nuclear deterrent submarines coming and going onto and back from patrol, I would think 9 aircraft are nowhere near enough. 15-25 sounds more realistic. Next SDSR I will be bombarding the MOD consultation with requests for more of these critical assets.
      The UK has to get back to a viable anti submarine posture, our history dictates this is only sensible. So a few more astute, return the type 26 order back upto at least 10, ideally 13. BAE cannot be so greedy as to keep unit price at 1.24 billion each when the design has been selected by Canada and Australia as well.
      I know money, personnel, etc etc. HMG just have to make this happen.

      • Can’t argue with your logic for more assets, unfortunately the cost of everything is prohibitive. Wish I knew the answer to this issue.

        • 130 billion? I believe the UK order was part of a batch 19 for several countries. It’s possible that more might be bought as part of a further batch I suppose to be value for money.
          But on top of all of any additional planes we have to find train and make available many more crew and ground crew and all the associated year on year costs.

          If we prioritise our homeland and it’s coastline then the bottom of the pile should be our army and it’s tanks and it’s expeditionary element. And no need for carriers, just a modern ‘fighter command’. But then all hell would be let loose. We need a balanced force I would suggest, and work with allies like Norway

          • Just seen this. Pretty much the thrust of what I suggested above.

            And I agree with you. A balanced force. I wouldn’t want to see any of those cut to the extent they are totally absent.

            I do however want the RN and RAF prioritised, along with ground elements like 16AA, UKSF, the RM, and their enablers in the ISTAR and transport fields.

        • This is the thing. And I’ve asked this hear before. What gets cut to pay for more P8?
          The idea of a large increase in the defence budget is highly unlikely considering modern politicians priorities.
          We are a rich nation, it can be afforded, but only if it is a priority and the will is there.

          So what’s my starter for ten? Tanks? RAF Reg? More bases?

      • Why the hell did we ever buy the P-8, we had the first “new” MRA4 Nimrod just about to enter service. But was scrapped in 2010 and broken up. Okay it was costly and late to programme, but it was ready, the order was for 9 and all 9 would have been in service by 2012. Whatever where they thinking during the SDSR review. Makes me so angry.

      • I agree Mr Bell. My comment was enthusiastic. Of course the gap is not yet closed with a single aircraft. But people should get the thrust if my rambling!

  3. The gap isn’t closed yet….when all 9 are operational then we will be some towards that objective. But unless we order more airframes, or a UAV alternative, then the gap will only be partially covered!

  4. 54sqn? Did I miss something, 201 and 120 are the allocated sqn numbers for MPA ops

    Good news though and impressive how quickly the aircraft is delivered after first flying

  6. Fantastic news, and with a modern airframe, availability will be well beyond what a larger Nimrod force could have produced.

          • As long as they’re maintained properly it shouldn’t be an issue. It’s amazing how many things like that civil aircraft fly around with, but as long as you’re aware and conduct proper maintenance regularly it should be fine.

            Plus, if there’s any issues, it’s likely to affect the USN fleet long before it affects ours.

  8. Congrats to the RAF on their first Poseidon, I see that it won’t be on UK soil until February next year.

    Here in Oz the RAAF recently took delivery of its 11th Poseidon, the last on order (the 12th) is due here by end of January next year. Just got to wait and see, if and when, the three options are taken up to make a potential fleet total of 15 airframes.

    I do wonder if the UK would ever look at following the USN and RAAF model by operating both Poseidon and Triton?

    • I doubt it, looks to me more like we are going to stick with our Protector Bs (our new version of the Predator drone) for a while at least.

      • Triton would be nice but you can see why it is a much greater need for the US and particularly Australia for geographical factors so Our mix is probably a better fit (eventually).

        One question I would ask is this, the article states this was the most capable aircraft available at the time of the order and timeframe considerations. So if we were to add further aircraft beyond the proposed number, is there something potentially a better fit that has subsequently become available? Even though it’s unlikely a split would be desirable considering factors already stated, supply chain being perhaps the prime one, it would be interesting to know what the alternatives if any now are.

        • Spyinthesky – The Kawasaki P1 would be the obvious alternative,the MOD were considering it at the time but for whatever reasons decided to go for the P8.

          • Also, France and Germany have finally agreed that they need to replace their Atlantics finally sooner rather than later. So Airbus have been making noises of what they could give them. I don’t think it would be wildly different in capabilities though as they were proposing to use their 318/320 airframe. I wouldn’t expect to see anything this side of 2025 though!

          • Germany hasn’t used Atlantic in years and replaced them with P3 Orion in 2005
            France has just started completly overhauling the Atlantic 2 fleet so they will be in use well beyond 2025

          • Yes, but he German P3s are second hand from Holland and only slightly better than the Atlantics they replaced. Dassault have said the Atlantic 2 is a stop gap and can’t be further upgraded, which is probably a sales tactic.

            The Franco-German defence ministers met for a Defence and Security Council in Toulouse on 16 October. Apart from agreeing on the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) aimed at developing a New Generation Fighter (NGF) demonstrator that would fly in 2026. They also agreed on developing the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) to replace Leopard 2 and Leclerc tanks.

            The final conclusions of the meeting reaffirmed France and Germany’s objective to award a contract for a feasibility study for a Maritime Airborne Warfare System (MAWS) for their maritime patrol aircraft in early 2020.

            Both Dassault and Airbus have been making noises on an Atlantic replacement that could compete with the Boeing P8, with Airbus releasing a CGI video of and Airbus A318/320 maritime patrol aircraft at the Paris air show.

          • I do not know what are your sources. But Atlantic 2 can be upgraded since France just received it’s first 2 updated Atlantic 2 a week ago. 18 will be upgraded in total and last delivery scheduled for 2024
            https://www.edrmagazine.eu/florence-parly-the-french-minister-of-the-armed-forces-welcomes-the-delivery-of-the-first-two-upgraded-atlantic-2-maritime-patrol-aircraft
            I think you may be confusing of talks between France and Germany about AWACS, ie there is talk about using the 330 MRTT to be an AWCAS as well as a tanker. I have not seen any anouncements about a Franco-German ASW project. If there is it is probably for 2040s

          • I got my information from Janes Defence and Security. They did a report on the joint French-German defence meeting in Toulouse last month.
            They specifically said the two countries require an air-platform to replace the ageing Atlantic and the German P3s, they called this requirement the Maritime Airborne Warfare System (MAWS). This was different to the airborne early warning and C3 requirement. Which may be tied together with NATO’s E3 Sentry replacement requirement. However, the latest from NATO is that they like the capabilities and performance of the E7 Wedgetail, so Airbus won’t be happy with that.
            I know on the surface seems to fly in the face of the French Navy receiving their first two of eighteen upgraded Atlantics! However, this upgrade is not an airframe upgrade, but a systems upgrade. The Atlantic 2s first flew in 1986 and have been officially in service with the Navy since 1989, this latest upgrade is to Standard Specification 6, which adds the Search Master active electronically scanned array radar, a new acoustic data processing system and a Dassault-designed navigation console. This is the reason why the French in particular are looking at a replacement aircraft.
            Little known fact, the French have been using their Atlantics in Mali as a high level bomber, dropping laser guided bombs on illuminated targets. With well over 12 hours of duration and a massive weapons bay, they in some respects provide more support than an armed drone.

      • Yes I was aware the RAF is going to be operating the Predator B (the RAAF is also going to be a Reaper/Predator operator too, they just haven’t decided which model and final numbers as yet).

        Anyway, the RAAF is doing pretty well, 12-15 Poseidon, 6-7 Triton and 12-16 Reaper/Predator.

    • All well and good. Australia is a continental sized country, with a long coastline and surrounded by a large area of sea. In contrast, it has just 30,000 personnel in its army and just 59 tanks.

      • And no SSN, a detterent, and countless other enablers.

        But for what they have prioritised in the ISTAR air domain impressive.

      • We were forced to take the Tanks to match a US MEU, we never really wanted them , same with Boxer and if your an English transfer irrespective be it from SAS or Sniper we will put you where all easily lost plodding poms go , Armour or Chopper . We have been and always will be infantry orientated , it is poor man in our Army who goes to war sitting down being a glorified chauffeur. As far as SSN’s we are literally as i write this negotiating the last six Attack class as SSN’s plus also a ramp up retainer to US navy via Electric Boat in case of Commutation of authorized US Defence appropriation assets . That being quick allocation of for some reason not the latest block 5 but actually Block 4 Virginia but hopefully that never needs to eventuate .

        • I’m not sure what you are particularly driving at. Australia does ok with its armed forces, best wishes to it, and I’m sure its army is pretty good. It has a number of P8s and submarines and it needs them for its geography. I’m guessing that it’s priority would be it’s navy and airforce, relative to it’s army. Frankly this is what our (the UKs) priority should be.

  9. 9 aircraft was never enough-these aircraft assuming remained flight worthy /serviceable 24×7 they would barely cover our coastal waters, our other ‘international commitments’ ie our Naval Fleet operating worldwide be it on excersise and or operationally-there will NOT be enough available aircraft to meet any of these commitments, as for the support we once offered /gave to our Commonwealth Country’s, let alone the excellent work our previous Nimrod Fleet did in the Bahamas identifying and leading in the Royal Navy to stop search and capture not just the illegal drugs, and the drug runners but also the identities and location of the drug barons+facilities. To do the previous work that our Nimrod Fleet excelled at doing, I would suggest the currently ordered fleet of just 9 aircraft needs to be tripelled to minimum of 27 aircraft. The Nimrod constantly came out top during international excersises /competitions, the Nimrod had the equipment and airborne backroom staff that truly excelled as a highly trained team that gelled giving results the rest could only dream about with much of its equipment classed as being at best antiquated-but these guysites knew how to make their equipment sing to their Hymn Books, devising and using ‘work arounds’ to overcome the identified ‘shortfalls’ within their Equipments.
    Without any doubt the new B737-P8 Posidon Aircraft will not have the capacity lest come close to the Unrefulled Range of the Nimrod, then we tackle the capacities of their Bomb Bays; the Nimrod Bomb Bay alone had extensively more capacity+vast range of Equipments and Weapons carried, never mind the Nimrod’s capacity to carry External Weapons on each wing, able to carry upto x4 Air to Ground /Ship Sinking Missiles carried on each wing, or the x4 SideWinders carried for its own self defence.
    Without doubt the P8 Posidon Will Not be able to uplift the range of Equipments, Weapons Packages and or the Fuel Capacity that our Nimrod Aircraft could, and would carry be it at times of emergency or when out there doing their job-Operationally Protecting our Naval Fleets.
    Still believe we should have led a Euro Team utilising the Airbus 318, 319, 320 or 321 range of aircraft, systems /operators installed could be increased or decreased to meet particular country requirements, a similar Belly Fairing /Bomb /Equipment Bay would have been installed, sized to meet particular Airbus Aircraft Model chosen by Operator Country’s. The Euro requirement STILL needs to be addressed, you have Germany, France, Italy, Holland, Belgium, and Denmark-to name just some country’s ALL with urgent /long term Maritime Aircraft Fleet replacement and or New Capability requirements. There are of course many many other European Country’s-Members of NATO that would welcome a second or better choice of available options. Personally would like UK to lead the European Maritime New Aircraft, with The RAF ultimately replacing the P8 Posidon with what undoubtly will be a far more capable, Euro Equipped Airbus A320 Range of Maritime Aircraft Fleet.
    The maintenence of this fleet could /would be centralised in Europe be at one or two Maintenence Sites-here in the UK we could offer up St Athan’s in South Wales or Kinloss in Northern Scotland-both sites have plenty of hangerage, and hard standings already in place.
    There I have added my twopence worth…..

    • You have to remember that in 2015 this was the best off the shelf, operational aircraft available. Going down the rabbit hole of Euro projects doesn’t get our urgent operational requirements anywhere, you just get a 15+ year delay in capability. Just look at the Typhoon and A400M developments, constant squabbles over workshare and which capabilities, orders reduced, etc. Till Europe can execute a program competently in a less than 10 year window, preferably 5, then we’ll be buying American. Too much money has been wasted in Euro projects that haven’t delivered on time!

    • Gross failures all round…but sadly, par for the course for defence acquisition in this country. Look at that bomb bay…you could park several cars in there…not the prissy little handbag of the P9. More importantly, you could stuff at least six tomahawks in there!

      • The problem as I see it was MoD trying to penny pinch by updating existing Nimrod aircraft, which were built by hand in a lot of cases so the upgrades didnt fit, and it all ended up as a massive mess.

        I wonder sometimes had they just built x number of Nimrod MR4s from scratch, would they be flying over our skies and seas right now?

        • Undoubtedly, even if they used an airbus airframe and BAe packed it with their own sensors it would have had a great chance winning European orders.

    • Great looking aircraft, I so so miss them flying in circles around my house near kinloss. Are any still flying for airshows ect? Surely we could keep one flying with all the ex crews we have.

      • Hi Cam, I think the Waddington based R1s of 51 squadron were the last operational Nimrods – probably last flew in 2011.
        There are no aircraft flying on the air-show circuit, although a few airframes are dotted around museums on static display.

        • Hi Alan. Ah right, yeah there are a few, the last nimrod at kinloss was saved but it lost its wings and rear fuselage so Not the same! The footage of all the nimrods being crushed will always haunt me!. I think We should have a Nimrod still flying in airshows but we then again I think we should have a Vulcan, victor, valiant also! We british have made some great airplanes and merging all our airplane builders into one or two company’s was a huge mistake! We then lost all the unique aircraft builds. And now we build hardly any.

          • That’s the issue of our defence companies beibg free market, private companies: those companies can merge and not much we can do about it.

            Note: I am not advocating we nationalise our defence companies; private companies are more efficient and make better equipment because their stuff has to be competitive. Only way I would advocate nationalising out defence industry would be if we were in WW3 and under the real threat of invasion/destruction.

          • I was so depressed after SDSR2010 my wife took me on holiday. I didn’t watch the Nimrods destruction.

            13 years of Labour gradually dismantling the escort fleet and the RAFs Fast Jet Squadrons, the usual howls of protest in opposition, and then the Tories do the same.

            The only reason the axe had not been taken to the Army by Brown earlier was Iraq and Afghanistan.
            And even then the Future Army Structures review had already bitten into our mechanized and armoured forces.

            NO current government can be trusted on Defence. Capabilities and their finance should be criss party agreed and enshrined in law.

          • Couldn’t agree more Daniele.

            I will go further – as we are in an election cycle 2 things need to happen (they wont – but should)

            All parties need to use a set of facts produced by independent bodies (constantly not a one off). these bodies should be agreed in advance.

            All parties spending plans should be set against a % of GDP and set out the source of taxation, that way we know what they plan to spend against GDP and how they plan to collect taxes to pay for it.

            For defence this would hopefully end up with a 3% GDP commitment requiring £60bn of tax to be gathered via National insurance (as an example).

            We need to align tax collection with spending so people can really decide what is important and what’s not.

            Unfortunately this wont happen and we will end up with a continuing set of false facts, fake news and poor governance.

          • You’ve expanded on my ideas there better than I could Pac man, my knowledge of how that all works is poor.

          • If only it were as simple as that. Whilst Labour was responsible for defence reductions, they were also responsible for ordering QE and POW….the commissioning of the former being a cause celebre on this website. They also ordered 22 Chinooks….cut to 12 by the Tories!

          • And ordering these carriers pushed our strategy towards maritime activity and finding a use for these carriers. It also ensured we had the B version of the F35 and not the A.
            It is not, as an e.g., the fault of politicians that the Mod or the army had got itself confused about Boxer and Ajax and it’s ideas (or not) about “striker” brigades… (and what on earth do we do with our MBTs).

            But I grow tired of commentators demanding an armed forces designed to take on China and Russia combined and single handed. We have allies. Politically and militarily we should focus on just what the point of our forces should do…. And it should not be a flag waving self serving mini-me of America, or indeed China or to a lesser extent Russia.

          • I fully agree Trevor! I like the idea of a carrier force, but not at the expense of a joined up defence strategy. We need to decide what kind of country we are and what our defence obligations should be. Our Empire fizzled out in the 1960s and Dean Acheson commented: ‘Britain has lost an Empire and not yet found a role’! I think that that comment is still prescient….unless you conclude that we are the USA’s subservient side-kick! An oh my gosh-golly Robin to their Batman. The sight of Blair brown-nosing Bush still makes me feel nauseous!

          • My main point is we have the carriers,now and it pushes us to a maritime strategy. If so we should follow it and not be trying to be all things to all everything. Now frankly this is probably the best and support only a minimum land based europe involvement… As it is we have some confusion about our army policy… I do not see how we can sensibly pursue this striker policy and still expect to support full on MBT units.. and (AND!) all our very important parachute, airborn, marine and SAS etc to their fullest. On top of which any land/ marine operations require air power & superiority.

          • Do not get me started on the friggin strike Brigade chuff, never in the field of human conflict has so much capabilty been wasted, by so few!

          • They did order QE and POW, yes.

            Amongst endless cuts elsewhere.

            The Chinooks! That requires more detail. They were going to order those extra Chinooks on the back of closing RAF Cottesemore and cutting number 3 and 4 Squadron flying Harrier GR9s.

            I still remember the quite USELESS defence secretary Gareth Ainsworth justifying the Harrier cuts by saying the saving would go to ordering those 22 Chinooks.

            So that was nothing to be proud of. It came from a cut.

            And I think the Tories cut the order to 14, not 12.

            In itself a disgrace seeming as it was assured the money was there to pay for them by the cuts elsewhere.

            It is indeed not as simple as that.

            May be I could get a little list together of who cut what from 91 to now and see who the winner is.

            I think we would find both Conservative and Labour have an equally poor record.

          • And another thing, over 1 billion was added to the carriers cost by pushing the program to the right by the then Labour DS.

            But all this sniping is pointless isn’t it, they are all crap!

          • I don’t disagree with your comments, however politicians do deserve credit when they get things right. We are inclined to be very negative when evaluating government decisions…rightly so in many cases. But, defence spending is a political football, and always will be as long as there are no votes in it. A cross-party ring-fenced agenda makes sense for this country’s defence, but no government is going to tie it’s hands by agreeing to one.
            The interesting thing about the carrier programme was that it proved too expensive for Cameron to cancel. Maybe there is a lesson in there somewhere?

          • My thinking is along with Trevor.

            Maritime and Air Strategy.

            Yes, thank god with that idiot Osborne around.

          • QE and POW were the result of GOrdon Brown electioneering nothing to do with concern for the Navy all about votes . The order for 22 chinooks made only by cutting 3 Gr4 squadrons that’s the marxists for you !

  11. Great news yes – but can someone explain why all 9 will not be in service until 2027? That’s a ludicrous timescale!!

    I also echo the sentiment that 16 should be acquired but that will never happen – more with less will continue unfortunately unless the RAF makes cuts somewhere else…..

    • Not granted enough money to enable a faster purchase rate. Treasury holds all departments of government on tight purse strings regardless of consequences. Much of the Forces new equipment hasn’t been actually granted the funds, but are hoped to be paid for by cutting other things. Madness.

      • The real shame in that is that even with an election looming, there’s not a single party that will change that.

        – Conservatives will keep things as they are. Its them that have set it up with this snail’s pace buying rate.
        – Labour under Corbyn would slash the defence budget massively.
        – Lib Dems would only improve things at the cost of getting rid of our nuclear deterrent. We’d have a bigger air force and navy but that means little if someone can just nuke us.
        – SNP… well, we know they only want Scottish Independence and dont give a fig about defence, except to oppose our nuclear deterrent.
        Brexit Party: single policy party, no defence policy to speak of.
        Greens: would make Jeremy Corbyn look like a war hawk in comparison. They would pretty much abolish our armed forces.

        Not a great choice for defence.

        • I do not think the Lib dems would get rid of the nuclear deterrent. Remember that parties say all sorts of things when they are not in government. If they actually have to make those decisions they will be privy to all sorts of information that will point them towards the fact that the Nuclear deterrent is actually not necessarily a bad deal. Also I do not think they would get any support for it from others.

        • The Lib Dem’s don’t have a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament. What they wanted was a review of the nuclear deterrent to see if the present option of 4 SSBN and SLBMs was the most appropriate before ordering the 4 new SSBNs. They wanted to explore such ideas as increasing the fleet of SSNs and giving them a nuclear option such as a single common missile compartment or nuclear warhead tipped cruise missiles.

          Now they were not saying anything was correct or not, it was more about questioning what we really needed. It was never about unilateral nuclear disarmament.

  12. I hope the UK decides to arm them with SLAM-ER while the production line is open. I agree 16 P-8 would be good, but in the current climate, I doubt that more than 1 or 2 extra, would get past HM Treasury.

  14. Its nice to see that the UK is finally getting back into the fixed wing ASW game.
    However being a glass half full / half empty kind of person who used to maintain lightweight torpedoes there is a big elephant in the room…

    Its all very nice having a shiny new aircraft with lots of wiz bang sensors and systems but its no good if you cannot kill a sub when needed.

    The P-8 is going to be armed with a Mk54 Torpedo. For those that don’t know that’s a US bastardised hybrid of the 1960’s vintage back end of a Mk 46 torpedo ( Speed around 40 knots down hill with the current behind it)and a Mk 50 ( A more modern but very expensive US Torpedo) front end. The whole thing will get a wing kit because of the need to drop it from very high altitude so a parachute will not work.

    The UK got rid of the Mk 46 and even older Mk 44 back in the late 1980s and replaced them with the original version of the Mk 75 Sting Ray because the performance of the Mk46 was such that it could not catch up with or sink a Soviet era Sub. Since then the prospective target subs are now Russian or Chinese designed and they have gotten quieter, faster and stronger. Mk 75 Sting Ray software and hardware has been updated to counter this and is still probably the best and fastest Lightweight ASW torpedo in the business.

    In the littoral a Mk 54 may be adequate (barely) against a KILO type conventional sub but a Mk46 propulsion unit, no matter how clever a front end you stick on it, is not going to catch a modern sub that goes deep and fast in the open ocean. Even if you did get luck and catch it the Mk 54 has a conventional blast warhead that is unlikely to even dent a modern subs titanium hull. Sting ray has a Shaped Charge warhead designed specifically for punching through double hulls, titanium hulls or Cruise Missile carrying subs with large spaces between the outer and inner pressure hull.

    The sooner Sting Ray is integrated with the P-8 the better because until then the P-8 will be a sub finder , not a sub killer.

      • According to Wiki, Spearfish is 7m long, so is to long for the P8’s bomb bay. It would need to be carried under the wings. Stingray still has the speed (45kn plus) and duration to catch subs.

        • Fair enough.

          Are we likely to integrate Stingray with P8?

          That’s what annoys me about the MoD; not just the low numbers of assets we have (though that is a serious issue) that in light of low numbers we dont integrate what we have to be as flexible as possible.

          It’s like with anti-ship missiles. When we do procure one, say NSM, it needs to be integrated onto P8, Typhoon and F35 as well as all our frigates & destroyers – even if only in canisters for the latter 2.

          Make every combat plane capable of air to air, air to ground and anti ship.

          Seems at the moment we pin all our hopes of offensive anti ship on the one or two Astutes we’ll have with a carrier strike group, and all our anti sub capability on said Astutes and a couple of helicopters.

      • Spearfish= heavyweight with wire/FO guidance
        Sting Ray= Lightweight

        The two are not comparable. even the propulsion systems are different. Spearfish carries its own fuel which is weight. Sting Ray has a sea water battery using the sea water as electrolyte which keeps the weight down.

    • Brilliant, you’ve answered my question over which is theoretically better Stingray or Mk54. This was for the question of installing RUM-139C ASROC on the Type 26. The RUM-139C is fitted with the Mk54 torpedo, so could the Stingray be fitted instead?

  15. These are real game changing strategic assets. Better off tripling the size of this fleet and dominating the atlantic and med than buying a few more frigates. These combined with stealthy ucav’s and the zephyr could dominate strategic choke points.

    • That’s a fair point.

      It would be a hell of a lot cheaper than extra frigates and means we dont necessarily need to have ships stationed here ready to shadow Russian ships encroaching on our waters.

      The P8 can easily be armed with Harpoons and I’m assuming we could integrate NSM or whichever other anti-ship missile we adopt. Would also give a shock to Russian sailors expecting our response to be from an OPV or mine hunter.

      Would free up the Type 23 (later Type 26) frigates for fleet protection the future Type 31s for lower end duties. Could be worth exploring.

      • Steve wrote:
        “That’s a fair point. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper than extra frigates and means we dont necessarily need to have ships stationed here ready to shadow Russian ships encroaching on our waters. The P8 can easily be armed with Harpoons and I’m assuming we could integrate NSM “

        Why aren’t you the Defence minister, because above you make much more sense, in one paragraph than the entire bunch of entitled so called political elites in power.

        • Well, I’m pretty happy in my current job but if someone were to offer me the job of defence minister I’d definitely take it!

    • Also note that illustration has got UARSSI wrong it should be UARRSI – Universal Aerial Refueling Receptacle Slipway Installation

      • Speaking of UARRSI, it’s a shame we can’t actually refuel these. Or the E3, E7, Airseeker, Voyager, and C-17

        Someone really dropped the ball when they ordered the Voyagers without booms, and I hope that mistake is rectified ASAP.

        What’s the point having tankers if they can’t refuel half the fleet?

    • Lol. Though I agree with the Corbyn defence concern I remember watching him on Forces TV talking of the new surveillance aircraft and more ships for the RN. So I’d expect Posiedon to be safe and the T31s.

      As for defence as a whole, remains to be seen. I, like you, fear the worst. I hope I’m wrong.

  19. I think that the fact Russia is capable of deploying 10 subs when the whole of nato Europe can only deploy a couple more than that,and at best 6 ssn should be a serious wake up call. Granted it’s probably a one time testing exercise but considering they have more subs than the entirety of nato Europe clearly makes the case for increased asw assets and mpa is the cheapest way to improve this. I’d rather triple the P8 fleet at the expense of a T26 or even some of our amphib capability

    • Totally agree, that in the run-up or during a conflict, the main threat to trade or heavy reinforcements across the Atlantic, involving say Russia, would be the submarine. But to manage the threat or defeat it you need a multi-layered approach. Starting with the SOSUS nets between the GIUK gaps, your own submarines, ASW frigates with ASW helicopters, and maritime patrol aircraft (MPA). Over reliance on one system means you lose flexibility, but also makes it easier for your enemy to develop tactics to counteract it.
      For all the benefits of the MPA, it has one major flaw and that is the crew. Great that the aircraft can do patrols over 12 hours long, but how much down time will the crew get, how alert will they be for the full length of the mission? The aircraft is supposed to have a galley and a crew rest area, but due to its limited size only a couple of crew can use it at any one time.
      This is why it’s best to operate the aircraft as part of a coordinated team, working in close concert with a frigate or the carrier and if the P8 has VLF communications a sub.
      The aircraft can cover huge swathes of the ocean, where if it finds something suspicious vectors a frigate to the zone or calls up another MPA to help or take over.

  20. Just so the owners of this website know, this site is compromised, constant security warnings Everytime I visit this site, and the script appears in mandarin before loading. Something is seriously wrong

  21. Plenty of cheap 737-800s lying around at the moment. Good time to pick up one or two as flight crew trainers and utility aircraft.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here